Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely,

Runcorn District Water Board Bill [Lords].

Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords].

General Reversionary and Investment Company Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Thomas Cheshire and Company, Limited (Delivery Warrants), Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Caledonian Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).

Address for "Return showing (a) Particulars of all Aliens to whom Certificates of Naturalisation have been issued and whose Oaths of Allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1922, been registered at the Home Office(b) Information as to any Aliens who have during the same period obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature; and(c) Particulars of cases in which Certificates of Naturalisation have been revoked within the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 116, of Session 1922)."—[Mr. Godfrey Locker Lampson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

REPARATION CLAIMS DEPARTMENT.

Mr. JARRETT: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of persons employed by the Reparation Claims Department and the approximate total annual amount of salaries and wages?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame): The number of persons employed on the work of the Reparation Claims Department at the present time is 165, at a total annual cost in salaries and wages, of (approximately) £36,000. Included in these figures are persons employed overseas.

CLEARING OFFICE (ENEMY DEBTS).

Mr. JARRETT: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of persons employed by the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts) in London and elsewhere; the approximate total annual amount of salaries and wages; and how long it will be before the work of this Department is cleared up?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The number of persons employed by the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts)—which includes the Clearing Office (Germany), and the Departments for the Administration of Austrian, Hungarian and Bulgarian property; and the representatives of those Departments in Berlin, Vienna and Budapest, and their staffs—is 1,006. The annual cost of their salaries and wages is approximately £231,000. It is impossible to state the approximate life of these different Departments, as it will be largely dependent upon external circumstances beyond their control, but the staffs are subject to continual reduction as circumstances permit.

TEMPORARY OFFICERS (RETIREMENT).

Mr. LANSBURY: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the rule as to retirement applicable to permanent officers of the Civil Service extends to temporary officers employed in the Ministries of Labour and Pensions and whether those temporary or permanent officers who are receiving Service pensions up to £1,000 per annum for service in other Departments, and are
now drawing salaries in whole-time posts up to £1,000 per annum, will be able to have their present service added to pensionable service on the completion of their present engagements?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): Temporary officers of the Civil Service are discharged when their services are no longer required. They are not subject to the age limits prescribed by Order in Council for the permanent Civil Service, but to such limits as may be laid down for particular cases or classes of cases. Service in respect of which pension has already, been awarded, and is now being issued, cannot be aggregated with present service for pension purposes, even if such service is pensionable.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the Pensions Ministry the regional officer for Yorkshire is being discharged and two other regional officers are receiving pensions of £900 and £1,000 a year and also salary for performing the duties of regional officer, and in view of the fact that there are thousands of men out of work capable of doing this work, will he discharge the pensioners?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am afraid, if the facts are as stated by the hon. Member, it would seem to he a matter more for the Ministry of Pensions than for myself, but if there are any such cases it will be interesting to have them.

Mr. LANSBURY: You are the watchdog of the Treasury.

BUILDING MATERIALS(COMMITTEE).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the personnel of the Committee he has appointed to watch the operations of trusts, the number of times it has met, what it has done, and what powers it possesses?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The composition of the Committee is not yet completed, but I hope to be in a position to make an announcement very shortly. With regard
to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Tottenham North (Mr. R. C. Morrison) on the 28th ultimo.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so far back as 1918 a Committee was appointed, and unanimously recommended that certain action should be taken? Has not the right hon. Gentleman had time since 1918 to appoint a, Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry, but I have not been in a position to appoint a Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TONGUES (IMPORTS).

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can inform the House of the amount of tongues imported from abroad ready packed in tins or jars in 1922, the amount of tongues imported unpacked for packing in tins or jars in this country in 1922, and the amount of tongues of the latter class which are preserved or smoked in the country of production before export, and which are exported fresh and in cold storage, respectively?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I regret that I am not in possession of the information desired by the hon. Member.

EXPORT CREDITS.

Mr. HANNON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the latest figures for advances made under the Exports Credits Scheme; and the total value of amounts guaranteed in connection with the export of goods to the British Empire and other countries?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The total advances made under the Export Credits Scheme amount to £1,752,150. Guarantees have been given to the total amount of £2,759,422, of which £315,122 is in respect of goods exported to the British Empire.

MOTOR TYRES (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. HANNON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of motor tyres and component parts imported into this country during the 12 months ended
31st December, 1922; and whether, in view of the grave unemployment existing in the motor-tyre industry in this country, he will consider whether this is a case where a duty might be imposed?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): The value of pneumatic tyres and tubes for motor-cars and motor-cycles into this country during the year 1922 amounted to £4,049,570. As regards the second part of the question, I am unable to anticipate the Budget statement.

DYESTUFFS (IMPORTATION).

Mr. PRINGLE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the increased remuneration granted to the Central Importing Agency, or any part of it, is given on account of bad debts; and, if so, what is the amount of such debts?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No part of the increased remuneration granted to the Central Importing Agency was on account of any bad debts which the agency may have incurred.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the fact that there were bad debts? Are we to understand that it was merely a coincidence that the remuneration has been increased, and that bad debts have been incurred?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, Sir. It is only a coincidence. The original arrangement made by the Treasury and the Board of Trade proved insufficient to provide adequate remuneration for the services performed by the agency. The subsequent raising of the rate of remuneration had no connection with the fact that the agency had incurred bad debts.

Mr. PRINGLE: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what the bad debts were?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Not without notice, nor is it relevant to the question, because the Government are not liable.

Mr. PRINGLE: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the total value credited to German reparations arising out of the importation of dyes and dyestuffs into the United Kingdom; the amount realised by sales; the value at cost of present stock and
the total amount of profit realised to date on this account?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is estimated that the amount to be credited to the German Reparation Account to date in respect of dyes and dyestuffs is approximately £950,000. The amount realised from sales is approximately £1,043,000. The realisable value of stocks on hand is estimated at £110,000. The amount of profit realised to 31st March, 1922, was £137,000. Accounts for the last financial year will not be available for some months.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTONGRIFFITHS: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to indicate what arrangements, if any, his Department, in conjunction or otherwise with the Oversea Settlement Committee, have made to extend credit facilities for the purchase of materials necessary for the opening up and development of new areas suitable for settlers overseas?

Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 47 and 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he will be in a position to inform the House under what financial scheme the British Government will co-operate with the various overseas Governments for the financing of railway undertakings necessary for the development of country suitable for settlers;
(2) if he, is now in a position to inform the House of the nature of his financial suggestion which he has submitted to the Cabinet for approval in relation to this country's financial assistance towards Empire development schemes?

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any new financial proposals to submit to this House in connection with the expressed intention of His Majesty's Government to co-operate with the Dominion Governments in approved railway settlement schemes?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would ask my hon. Friends to await the statement which will be made to-night.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what steps the Oversea Settlement Committee are taking with a
view to providing sustenance for the wives and children of approved settlers proceeding overseas until they are in a position to rejoin their husbands and is he aware that there are many married men who are precluded from taking advantage of the overseas settlement scheme owing to their inability to support their wives and families in the first instance?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I have been asked to answer this question. The Oversea Settlement Committee attach the utmost importance to family migration and they are aware that many married men are at present precluded from proceeding overseas owing to the difficulty of providing for the maintenance of their families, whilst they themselves are being trained as land settlers. The question of how best to provide at reasonable cost for the maintenance of families during the period in question is a difficult one, but I am giving this particular aspect of the question my special consideration.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what steps have been taken to form county associations in connection with the Oversea Settlement Committee under the group system?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, from the statements which have appeared in the Press, that a Migration Committee for Devon and Cornwall has been formed by the local authorities in those counties. Negotiations are at. present in progress with the Lord Lieutenant of Kent with a view to the formation of a Migration Committee in that county. It is intended to form one or two County Migration Committees experimentally before deciding whether it is desirable to form such Committees generally throughout the United Kingdom.

BANKRUPTCIES (AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY).

Mr. T. SMITH: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of bankruptcies registered in the agricultural industry for each year from 1914 to 1922, inclusive?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As this answer contains a table of figures, I will,
with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The table is as follows:


Numbers of failures, under the Bankruptcy Act, of farmers, market gardeners and smallholders for the years stated:


1914
…
…
…
…
131


1915
…
…
…
…
97


1916
…
…
…
…
54


1917
…
…
…
…
57


1918
…
…
…
…
24


1919
…
…
…
…
26


1920
…
…
…
…
31


1921
…
…
…
…
222


1922
…
…
…
…
327

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

Ex-ENEMY PROPERTY.

Mr. HANNON: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount paid to the Controller of the Clearing House in respect of realisations of the property in the United Kingdom of former enemy nationals; the estimated value of assets still available for realisation; and in what way these sums have been allocated?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total amount paid to the Controller of the Clearing Office by the Custodian of Enemy Property in respect of realisation of German property in the United Kingdom up to the end of last month was £33,600,000. It, is not possible to give any reliable estimate of the value of the unrealised German assets. The above sum has been allocated in accordance with the principles laid down in paragraph 1 (xvi) of the Treaty of Peace Order, 1919, as amended by the Treaty of Peace (Amendment) Order, 1920. The Proceeds of liquidation of ex-enemy property credited to the Austrian, Hungarian and Bulgarian administrations up to the same date were:





£
s.
d.


Austrian
…
…
987,856
19
8


Hungarian
…
…
250,064
3
9


Bulgarian
…
…
516,759
13
2


and these monies have been allocated to the payment of dividends on the debts and claims of British nationals. It will be impossible to estimate the value of the unliquidated property until the numerous conflicting claims to ownership have been determined.

HUNGARY (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Hungarian authorities have admitted through the British Clearing Office the liability for the amount claimed by British subjects with respect to pre-War Hungarian Government debts apportioned by the Reparation Commission as from 1st July, 1919, between the successor States of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire; and, if they have not, will he press the Hungarian authorities to expedite the matter?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As soon as the Reparation Commission gave their final decision last month, the Administrator of Hungarian Property communicated with the Hungarian Clearing Office on the subject, and instructed the representative of the Department in Budapest to urge the Hungarian authorities to admit the claims of British nationals in accordance with the Reparation Commission's decision.

Mr. SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the delay is reasonable, and, if not, will he press upon the Hungarian authorities to bring the matter to a conclusion at the earliest possible moment?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have pressed the matter upon the Hungarian Government, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that it was only last month that the Reparation Commission gave their decision. But I am pressing the Hungarian Government.

Mr. SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Reparation Commission were very dilatory even in giving their decision last month?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Hungarian Government could not assent to the verdict of the Reparation Commission till it reported.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

BRITISH TRADE.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the position with regard to goods bought by British subjects in Britain from German firms in occupied German territory for which licences have been granted by the Allies; is Berlin continuing to refund the reparation duty of 26 per cent. as hitherto; if Berlin is not so continuing, will the British Government or the Allies make good such failure; and, otherwise, by what means does he propose to prevent the interchange of trade between Britain and the occupied German territory coming to a standstill?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is not possible within the limits of an answer to a question to give a full statement of the Regulations affecting exports from German territory, and I am, therefore, sending my hon. Friend a copy of a notice on the subject which is being issued to traders. As regards the second part of the question no case has been brought to my notice in which reimbursement of the reparation levy has been refused by the German Government. His Majesty's Government are in constant communication with the German Government on the one hand and the French and Belgian Governments on the other with a view to facilitating trade between this country and occupied Germany so far as possible.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: Have there during the past month been any exports from occupied Germany to this country?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Oh, yes Sir. If the hon. Member will look at the statement I made on the Consolidated Fund Bill he will see that I said there had been considerable trade with Germany. He will see that I gave figures.

Mr. GRAY: From the occupied area only I mean.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The figures I gave related to trade with Germany generally. The trade with the occupied area must have been very small. I have already explained the difficulties that stood in the way, and the manner in which these have been eased by the action of the French and Belgian authorities. But our nationals are unable to
take effective advantage of these concessions, because the German Government are refusing to allow their nationals to take advantage of them.

Mr. SAMUEL: Are we to understand that the British Government view with grave disfavour any attempt to put these obstacles in the way of British trade and is the Department of the right hon. Gentleman prepared to press that point of view on the German Government?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, we have already taken steps to bring that view of the position to the notice of the German Government. We have again recently urged the German Government to withdraw its opposition.

Sir J. SIMON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there has been export of goods from occupied Germany within the past month?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There has been some exportation, but very small; and due to the fact that although the French Government have stated that they are merely charging in the occupied territory the same duties as were previously charged, and that the licences were the same, the German Government have forbidden their nationals to trade under those regulations.

Sir J. SIMON: If I put a question down, will the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures of the actual export for the last month from the occupied territory

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I doubt if I could get figures, but they are extremely small, and for the reasons I have stated, and until the German Government withdraw the obstacles they are putting in the way, they will, I fear, continue small.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 38.
asked the 'Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that British-owned coal destined to British factories in unoccupied Germany has been seized by the Franco-Belgian authorities when passing through territory occupied by them; that, under date of 6th March, the British High Commissioner stated in a letter to the British firm that such material would be liable to a 10 per cent. ad valorem tax; and, if so, what steps are being taken so
that the interests of British trade and British nationals should receive fair treatment at the hands of the Franco-Belgian authorities?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that difficulties occurred at the period referred to, but since that date definite assurances have been received that British coal destined for unoccupied German territory will not be interfered with, and that no duty will be levied on such coal, which is admitted for transit on a licence issued by the German authorities.

Captain W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, namely, what steps are being taken to secure the interests of British traders in the occupied territories?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The step that was taken in connection with this particular trade was to get the concession to which I have referred in the answer.

Captain BENN: The question asks what steps have been taken so that the interests of British trade should receive fair treatment?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is hardly possible to give the whole of the account in answer to a question, but I made a statement, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and His Majesty's Government are still pressing the German Government to make the necessary concessions.

Captain BENN: In the meantime, is it correct to say that trade is paralysed?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In the meantime it would be correct to say that the German Government is making trade impossible.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Is the right boa Gentleman aware that in the statement he made on the Consolidated Fund Bill ho said there had been no falling off in this trade, whereas he now says it has been almost lost?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I made no such statement. I said that the aggregate trade for which returns were available between the whole of Germany and England did not show any marked falling off. That was in the aggregate, but of course there is practically no trade going
on between the occupied territory and Germany, for the reasons which I have stated.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the question of the disposal of the money collected by the French Customs posts in the Ruhr district on British goods entering the occupied territory has yet been settled; and, if so, in what way it has been settled?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: is this matter being pursued with the French Government?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is being very carefully considered.

BRITISH POLICY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether the policy of His Majesty's Government is in complete accord with the policy of the United States Government so far as the possibility and desirability of intervention in the Ruhr question is concerned?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): His Majesty's Government hale no indication that the United States Government do not share their view that intervention in this question would serve no useful purpose at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

WAR GRAVES.

Mr. GILBERT: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of completed cemeteries in Belgium and France and the total approximate number of graves on which stones have now been fixed, and give any estimate of the number of cemeteries and graves which have yet to be completed in these countries?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The figures required by the hon. Member are as follows:


Larger cemeteries in which architectural and constructional work is complete, and in which headstones are wholly or partly erected
108


Smaller cemeteries complete with headstones
240


Larger cemeteries now under construction
278


Larger cemeteries for which tenders are being invited in the immediate future
86


Larger cemeteries still to be constructed, estimated at
440


Smaller cemeteries still to be completed, estimated at
1,748


(Note.—The smaller cemeteries referred to are those in which the number of graves is not sufficient to make any special constructional or architectural treatment necessary.)



Number of headstones erected on graves, or in cemeteries awaiting erection
121,000


Total estimated number of graves in France and Belgium on which headstones have yet to be erected
396,000

Mr. GILBERT: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it was the custom to allow the near relatives of any soldier buried in France or Germany to have free the wooden cross or other simple memorial erected on the original graves when they were rearranged; whether this practice has recently been stopped and, if so, will he state why; and will he consider as to continuing the old method of allowing the soldiers' relatives to obtain these simple memorials of the original graves?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Applications for the return of wooden crosses received up till 17th October last will be complied with. This date was finally fixed after several extensions of time. It has not been possible to make provision in the Estimates this year for continuing this practice, but arrangements have been made to allow relatives to obtain delivery in the cemeteries on production of written authority, which can he obtained (together
with the names of agents willing to act) on application to the Secretary, Imperial War Graves Commission, 82, Baker Street, W.1.

DEPTFORD CATTLE MARKET.

Mr. GILBERT: 18.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his Department still retains the use of Deptford Cattle Market; if he will state for what period of years it is held from the City Corporation, and on what terms; whether his Department has been approached as to releasing the buildings at once, so that they can be used again for a market; and if his Department can now give up use of the buildings without inconvenience to the Service?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): This area is still retained on a lease at £10,000 a year expiring on 31st August, 1926, unless determined before at six months' notice. The Department has recently been approached in the matter by the borough councils of Greenwich and Deptford. As indicated in my predecessor's reply of 11th December to the hon. Member for Deptford, it had already been decided to negotiate with the landlords with a view to surrendering about half the area. A reply from the landlords is now awaited. The rest of the area, comprising approximately its western half, is still required.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING ( PENALTIES).

Sir WILLIAM COTTS: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he will consider the advisability of making the punishment for illegal trawling the cancellation of the master's certificate?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. AB ill dealing with illegal trawling, the Illegal Trawling (Scotland) Penalties Bill, is now before the House, and if it is read a Second time, the question whether illegal trawling should he punished by the cancellation or suspension of the skipper's certificate could be considered on the Committee stage. I can only say at this stage that the question is one which will
require very careful consideration, having regard to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, relating to the suspension and cancellation of certificates.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Will the right hon Gentleman give facilities for that Bill in order that this question can be discussed?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is this a Government Bill?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am sorry that I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask the Patronage Secretary if it is a Government Bill?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am told that it is not.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the Government be responsible for giving facilities?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I put this question to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question ought to be put down on the Paper.

INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether schemes for the adequate provision of all forms of intermediate and secondary education without payment of fees have been submitted by all education authorities in Scotland to the Scottish Education Department and approved by the Department, as laid down by Section 6 (1) (a) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918: and, if not, in how many cases the Statute has net been complied with?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): In view of the postponement of the operation of Section 14 (1) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, the Department have not pressed for final schemes: but every education authority in Scotland has furnished for its district a statement of educational arrangements, which the Department have accepted provisionally as
complying with the requirements of the Act. As previously stated, my Noble Friend will be glad to receive particulars of any case into which the hon. and gallant Member wishes inquiry to be made.

Major WOOD: Can the hon. and gallant Member say if the Act is being carried out?

Captain ELLIOT: It is being carried out. If my hon. and gallant Friend knows of cases where it is not being carried out, I ask for his co-operation in dealing with them.

HOUSING BILL.

Major M. WOOD: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether it is proposed to introduce a separate Dousing Bill for Scotland?

Captain ELLIOT: The answer is in the negative.

SMALL HOLDINGS (RAIDED LANDS).

Mr. MacNEILL WEIR: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health on whose authority the decision recently issued by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, to the effect that they would not proceed to the formation of small holdings on any raided lands, was taken; whether he is aware that such decision is regarded by landlords as a form of insurance against the formation of small holdings on their estates; and whether, seeing that land raiders, like all other offenders, are amenable to punishment by the ordinary Courts of Justice and not to an unauthorised tribunal such as the Board of Agriculture, he is prepared to have this decision annulled?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): The effect of the Board's decision, which carries out an instruction issued and announced in the Press by the then Secretary for Scotland in December, 1921, and confirmed by the present Secretary for Scotland some months ago, is not correctly stated in the question. The instruction does not preclude the formation of small holdings on land which has been raided after the removal of the raiders, but it does require the persons who have taken part, in such raids to be removed from the Board's lists of approved applicants. The reply to the
second part of the question is in the negative. My Noble Friend is not prepared to annul the decision, which is in the interests of law-abiding applicants for small holdings.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (COMPENSATION).

Colonel NEWMAN: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give the total amount advanced by the Government of this country for the three months ending 31st March in respect of damage to property in the Irish Free State ascertained to be due to the British military action prior to 11th July, 1921; and will he say what sum has been paid as compensation for a like period by the Government of the Irish Free State for damage to property ascertained to be due to Irish military action in the territory of the present Irish Free State under the agreement recently arrived at between the Governments of the two countries?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No refund has yet been made under the agreement referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, and I am not yet aware of the sum paid by the Free State Government in respect of the period mentioned. In this connection, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Memorandum on Compensation which was laid before Parliament last night.

Colonel NEWMAN: Would the hon. Gentleman let the House know what is the actual amount of cash advanced as compensation by the Government up to date?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: After all, it is only 10 days ago that the period was closed. The Commission has to report on the collective value of the claims outstanding and the amount paid, and then the refund is paid. The time has not yet elapsed for getting all these figures, and if the hon. and gallant Member will put down another question in about 10 days' time the figures will then be available.

DEPORTATIONS TO IRELAND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether any of the persons deported to Ireland under
the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act have been released; whether any have been brought to trial; and how many of these persons have been allowed to appeal against their deportation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): The answer to the first part of the question is one; to the second, none. It is open to them all to make representations for the consideration of the Advisory Committee, but, so far, only three have done so.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask who the lucky person was, and why he was released?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think I had bettor not mention the name in public, but I do not mind telling the hon. and gallant Member. As there is a good deal of prejudice in certain quarters, I think it would be better not to mention names.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he was released? Was it because a mistake had been made?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: He was released partly on the ground of health and partly because he had given an undertaking not to engage in any further hostilities against the Irish Free State Government.

Mr. SHORT: 37.
asked the Home Secretary how many times the Advisory Committee, appointed under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, have met: how many deportees have been before the Committee; and, if any, with what result?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Committee have not yet met, as it is only within the past week that any representations for their consideration have been received. I am in communication with the Committee with a view to the early consideration of these representations.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many were deported who have made application to go before the Committee?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have just said, in answer to another question, that there were three. I believe that some others made applications, and then withdrew them.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: What is the reason for the delay in the meeting of the Committee?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is no delay. The only reason for their not meeting is that there were no cases for them to deal with.

Captain BERKELEY: With regard to the remainder of these prisoners, is it contemplated that they should remain in a state of indefinite confinement?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not now arise.

IMPORT DUTIES (MOTOR-CARS).

Colonel NEWMAN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a foreign motor-car either landed or assembled ill the Irish Free State would, on importation to Great Britain, pay a duty of 22 per cent., while the same car landed or assembled in Great Britain pays a duty of 33⅓ per cent.; and will a like preference be given to British cars imported into the Irish Free State?

Mr. BALDWIN: A foreign motor-car landed in the Irish Free State and then imported into Great Britain would be subject to the full duty of 33⅓ per cent. A motor-car made of foreign manufactured parts and assembled in the Irish Free State would, on importation into Great Britain, be subject to the preferential rate of duty of approximately 22 per cent. provided that not less than 25 per cent. of its value is the result of labour in the Irish Free State. I understand that a similar preference will be given to British cars imported into the Irish Free State.

KELANTAN.

Mr. THORNTON: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the judgments delivered in the House of Lords on the 22nd March in the matter of the appeal of the Government of Kelantan v. the Duff Development Company, Limited; and whether, in view of the terms of these judgments, the Secretary of State will take the necessary steps to make the award of the arbitrator and the judgments of the courts effective?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the Secretary of State has on more than one occasion caused the Duff Development Company to be informed that he could not contemplate advising the Sultan of Kelantan to refuse payment of a just debt, and that he would not refuse to use his influence with His Highness towards ensuring the payment of damages so far as funds might be available in the event of an award finally being given against the Government of Kelantan; but that it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to advise His Highness to borrow money which he could not repay, or on which he could not meet the debt charges without imposing crushing and oppressive taxation on the people of his State. He has now caused the Company to be informed of the steps which he is prepared to take.

Mr. THORNTON: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the control which has since 1909 been not only exercisable, but, in fact, exercised, over the operations of the Government of Kelantan by the Colonial Office, and as the breach of contract on the part of that State, established by the award of the arbitrator and the judgments of the courts, has arisen in connection with the construction of a railway which is not its property, and in the construction of which it had no share, the Secretary of State will protect the Government of Kelantan by taking steps to see that the parties in fact responsible for such breach of contract indemnify the Government of Kelantan and the parties injured by such breach against the consequences of such breach?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware of any parties who can be made liable to indemnify the Government of Kelantan or the persons alleged to have been injured by tile breach of contract referred to.

DEATH DUTIES (BRITISH DOMINIONS).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the British Dominions and/or provincial Governments within those Dominions impose duties analogous to the United Kingdom Legacy Duty, but payable in respect of assets belonging to the estate of a deceased person who was domiciled in the British Isles?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: While I should not feel justified in having an exhaustive analysis made of the various Death Duty systems at present in force in the British Possessions, I believe that the majority, if not all, of the Possessions which impose any Death Duties at all impose a duty on property which is situated within their respective territories regardless of the domicile of the deceased owner. Such a duty corresponds in principle with the British Estate Duty, which is a territorial duty, but does not correspond with the British Legacy Duty, which is dependent on the domicile of the deceased owner.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Quebec Succession Duty Act, 1914, puts a double duty upon the receivers of the estates of deceased persons who are domiciled in the British Isles?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am quite aware of that.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to bring representations before the authorities to have that, disability removed?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I believe that is being continually done.

COLONIES (NATIVE EDUCATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the native population, the amount spent on native education, and the amount per head so spent in each of the following Colonies in 1922–23: Gambia, Gold Coast, Sierra Leone (Protectorate), Nigeria, Nyassaland, Northern Rhodesia, Tanganyika, Kenya, Zanzibar, Uganda, Sudan, Somaliland, Mauritius, Seychelles, Jamaica, and Ceylon?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: With the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information so far as it is available. The Sudan is not administered under the Colonial Office, but under the Foreign Office.

The figures given deal with Government expenditure only, as it is impossible to give the expenditure on education by missionary and other private bodies.

Following is the statement:

Colony,
Total Estimated Expenditure on Education, 1922–23.
Total Population Census, 1921.*
Approximate cost per head.


£

s.
d.


Gambia
…
…
…
2,154†
210,530
0
2


Gold Coast
…
…
…
97,608
2,078,143
0
11


Sierra Leone
…
…
…
24,718†
1,451,311
0
4


Nigeria
…
…
…
104,474
18,707,921§
0
1


Nyassaland
…
…
…
3,000
1,201,983
0
0½


N. Rhodesia
…
…
…
Not available.
983,539
—


Tanganyika
…
…
…
9,541
4,124,438
0
0½


Kenya
…
…
…
69,320†
2,529,133
0
6½


Zanzibar
…
…
…
6,931†
197,199
0
8


Uganda
…
…
…
9,180
3,071,608
0
1


Somaliland
…
…
…
298
347,700§
—


Mauritius
…
…
…
103,897‡
376,108
5
6


Seychelles
…
…
…
3,422‡
24,523
2
9


Jamaica
…
…
…
149,411
858,118
3
6


Ceylon
…
…
…
494,033‡
4,497,686
2
2


* The total population has been given because:—


(a) No distinction is made in most of the census returns between Natives and others and


(b) The number of Non-Natives is proportionally very small.


† 1922.


‡Converted at 10 Rs. to the £


§ Estimated.

KENYA (BUDGET).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken to balance the Kenya Budget for the year 1923–24?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Estimates for 1923, as received from the Colony, showed a balance of £27,634 of revenue over expenditure. After allowing for certain adjustments on examination of the Estimates in the Colonial Office, the expected surplus is somewhat reduced, but it is not likely to fall much below £20,000.

IRAQ (CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY).

W.J. HOPE SIMPSON: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any date has yet been fixed for the summoning of the constituent assembly of Iraq?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 6th March to the hon. Member for Chippenham, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. SIMPSON: Are steps being taken to call this assembly together?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No. I replied on the 6th March that as the question of the northern frontier of Iraq remains unsettled in the Turkish negotiations it is not possible to fix a date.

Captain BENN: Do not the Government regard themselves as under some pledge to hold such an election; and does this reply mean that it will be postponed for a year?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We hope the Turkish negotiations will be resumed and settled very shortly, but until you know whom you are entitled to elect and for what constituencies you are going to elect the Assembly, you cannot hold an election.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two definite dates have been fixed for the summoning of this Assembly and on both occasions the pledge has been broken?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If it is possible to elect a King, why cannot you call a meeting of the constituent Assembly?

OFF-LICENCES.

Commander BELLAIRS: 35.
asked the Home Secretary how many off-licences
there were in London in 1922 and how many of these were tied to brewers; and how many off-licences there were in the provinces in 1922 and how many of these were tied to brewers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The number of premises with Justice' off-licences in London (County and City) on 1st January, 1922, was 2,156; the number in the provinces was 19,952. I have no information as to the number which are tied to brewers.

Commander BELLAIRS: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, though off-licences were originally granted for the convenience of the public, there has been a great increase in the number of these licences tied to brewers, especially in London, and that as a result only the beer and stout is sold in which the owner, as distinct from the tenant, is interested; and whether facilities can be given for a private Bill to prevent further off-licences becoming tied and to facilitate the liberation of off-licences which are already tied?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The statement made in the first part of the question has not previously been brought to my notice, and I have no information on the subject. I doubt whether the Leader of the House would find it possible to comply with the request contained in the second part of the question.

Commander BELLAIRS: Would the right hon. Gentleman be able to get information if I put a question down in, say, a week's time?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite sure, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see me, I will let him know in a day or two whether it is possible to get any further information.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BUILDING TRADES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of people usually engaged in the various branches of the building trades who are at present unemployed and the amount paid to them in unemployment benefit in
the last week for which figures are obtainable?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have no later information than that given in my reply to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. D. Somerville) on 14th March, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. THOMSON: In view of these large figures, will the right bon Gentleman make representations to the Prime Minister that he should expedite the introduction and passage of the Housing Bill, so that these people who are unemployed in the building trade may be engaged on useful work without delay?

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can give an estimate of the persons now drawing unemployment relief; of the numbers unemployed but not drawing insured benefits; of the numbers employed on relief works; and of the numbers working short time?

Sir M. BARLOW: At 30th March the number of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit was about 935,000.
As regards the number unemployed and not in receipt of benefit, I can only give figures in respect of persons registered at Employment Exchanges At 30th March the number of such persons was about 295,000, of whom about 54,000 were persons who had exhausted benefit the remainder include claimants serving the waiting week, those whose claims are not yet authorised, and persons not belonging to insured trades.
The number of persons directly employed on relief schemes and on works assisted under the Trade Facilities Act at 24th March, as reported to the Ministry of Labour, was 148,709. In addition, employment was provided in ancillary occupations as a result of these works, for, probably, at least 60,000 or 70,000 more.
As regards the number working short time I am unable to give a total figure, but the number at 26th March working systematic short time in such a manner as to qualify them for unemployment benefit was 55;001.

BRAZIL CENTENARY EXHIBITION (BRITISH PAVILION).

Sir G. HAMILTON: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet able to make any statement as to the handing over of the British pavilion at the Rio de Janeiro Exhibition to the Government of Brazil?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I have now had an opportunity of discussing this matter with His Majesty's Ambassador at Rio. When the exhibition closes, the pavilion will be, reconditioned, and formally handed over to the Brazilian Government, and every effort will be made to make the ceremony worthy of the occasion.

Sir G. HAMILTON: May I ask who will undertake this ceremony, and does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the British trading community, both in this country and in Brazil, attach very great importance to this ceremony, and do not think it would be suitable for the British Ambassador to hand over the building?

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling in Rio among leading Brazilians that some person of importance should perform the ceremony?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I am as anxious as my hon. and gallant Friends to do everything possible to encourage trade with Brazil and to meet the wishes of the Brazilian Government, but I have

—
By Bank of England
By Public Departments.



Maximum.
Minimum.
Maximum.
Minimum.


1920–21
…
…
…
107,000,000
Nil
220,772,000
142,691,000


1921–22
…
…
…
73,750,000
Nil
197,168,000
111,435,000


1922–23
…
…
…
26,250,000
Nil
214,628,500
148,199,500

The rates of interest have varied from 5 per cent. to 1 per cent.

VILLAGE CLUBS ASSOCIATION.

Mr. F. GRAY: 53
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) what is the total amount of grants from the Development Fund to the Village Clubs Association;

consulted my advisers, and am advised that to make what I may call, if I may be excused for using the expression, a big show of handing over this pavilion now would be something of the nature of an afterthought. If we were going to do anything of that kind, we should have done it last year, when the centenary celebrations were on. We are sincerely anxious to show our respect and consideration for the Brazilian Government, and if there is any special way in which that can be done I shall be glad to adopt it.

Mr. HARRIS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid we cannot now debate the matter.

Sir G. HAMILTON: rose —

Mr. SPEAKER: We have already given a long time to this question.

WAYS AND MEANS ADVANCES.

Sir JOHN HARMOOD-BANNER: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the maximum and minimum amounts of advances from Ways and Means in the years 1920, 1921, 1921–22, 1922–23, and the interest, if any, paid to the Bank of England and to other Government Departments?

Mr. BALDWIN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the Orneua REPORT.

The figures are as follow:

(2) whether he is aware that the Development Commissioners have offered to make a small grant to the Village Clubs Association on condition that it restricted its operations; and whether a similar condition has been attached to the grants made to any other organisation;

(3) what was the total amount spent by the Food Production Department in
establishing and organising women's institutes; and what was the total amount subsequently given out of the Development Fund to the National Federation of Women's Institutes?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The total amount of grants actually paid from the Development Fund to the Village Clubs Association up to the 31st March, 1923, was £16,978. I am aware that the Development Commissioners indicated that they were prepared to recommend a grant of a certain amount to the Association in respect of the year beginning the 1st October, 1922, on condition that expenditure upon the Headquarters of the Association was restricted, but I am informed that, in the opinion of the Commissioners, such curtailment need not involve a restriction of the operations of the Association. Conditions as to the reduction of Headquarters expenditure have been made in the case of other organisations. I understand that the work of establishing and organising women's institutes was carried out as part of the normal duties of the Food Production Department with certain outside assistance. The expenditure from October, 1917, to November, 1919, when the National Federation of Women's Institutes took over the work, was approximately as follows:



£


Salaries and travelling expenses
7,742


Grants to National Federation of Women's Institutes from Food Production Department Funds
1,900


Indirect expenditure, i.e., services rendered and expenses borne by other Departments —Office of Works, Stationery Office, Post Office, etc. (Estimate)
3,871



£13,513

The total amount subsequently paid out of the Development Fund to the National Federation of Women's Institutes up to the 31st March, 1923, was £30,128.

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: Arising out of the, middle portion of that answer, in view of the very small sum that is involved and the very great service which these village clubs perform to the residents, cannot the Development Commissioners see their way to increase the grant this year?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: There is correspondence going on at present about it.

RUMANIA.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: (by Private Notice)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make, any statement as to the alleged revolution in Rumania?

Mr. McNEILL: Notice of this question only reached me after I came to the House. I have not seen the report referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. I have no information of any sort to confirm it, and nothing to lead me to believe that it is likely to be correct.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister tell us what business he proposes to take to-night?

Mr. BALDWIN: (replying for the Prime Minister)
We only propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, and to Lake the first four Votes on the Order Paper—8, 10, 9 and 6. We propose to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule solely in order to obtain those Votes, because work cannot be proceeded with until they are passed.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes. 221; Noes, 165.

Division No. 76]
AYES.
[3.51 pm.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood
Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Berry, Sir Georye


Astbury, Lieut-Com. Frederick W.
Barnston, Major Harry
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Balrd, Rt. Hon Sir John Lawrence
Becker, Harry
Blundell, F. N.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Brass, Captain W.
Halstead, Major D.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Briggs, Harold
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Paget, T. G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Harrison, F. C.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Bruford, R.
Hawke, John Anthony
Penny, Frederick George


Bruton, Sir James
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings]


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G,
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Raine, w.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hider, Lieut. Colonel Frank
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rentoul, G. S.


Cautley, Henry Strothcr
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins John W. W.
Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir p. (Chertsey)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Houlton, John Plowright
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Clayton, G. C.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Hudson, Capt. A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hughes, Collingwood
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hume, G. H.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hutchison, G. A. C (Midlothian, N.)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Cope, Major William
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandon, Lord


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Shipwright, Captain D.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Davidson, J. C C (Hemel Hempstead)
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb. J. Q
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Dixon, C H. (Rutland)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Sparkes, H. W.


Doyle, N- Grattan
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Steel, Major S. Strang


Ednam, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lorden, John William
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Ellis, R. G.
Lorimer, H. D.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sutcliffe. T.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Ersine-Bolst, Captain C.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Evans Ernest (Cardigan)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Falcon, Captain Michael
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Tubbs, S. W.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wallace, Captain E.


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Col. L, (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wells, S. R


Forestler-Walker, L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
winterton, Earl


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wise, Frederick


Furness, G. J.
Morelng, Captain Algernon H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Garland, C. S.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gates, Percy
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murchison, C. K,
Worthington- Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Nail, Major Joseph
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Gould, James C.
Newman, Colonel J, R. P. (Finchley)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L, (Exeter)



Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guinness, Lieut. Col. Hon. W. E.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Gibbs.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nield. Sir Herbert



NOES.


Adams, D.
Briant, Frank
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Brotherton, J.
Collins, Pat (Walsall)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Buckle, J.
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro'}
Burgess, S.
Cowan, D, M. (Scottish Universities)


Ammon. Charles George
Burnie, Major J, (Bootle)
Darbishire, C. W.


Attlee, C. R.
Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Batey, Joseph
Cairns, John
Duffy, T. Gavan


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Cape, Thomas
Dunnico, H.


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Chapple, W. A.
Ede, James Chuter


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Charleton, H. C.
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)


Bonwlck, A.
Clarke, Sir E. C.
Fairbairn, R. R.


Bowdler, W. A.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Foot, Isaac




George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gosling, Harry
M'Entee, V. L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McLaren, Andrew
Simpson, J. Hope


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Macpherson Rt. Hon. James I.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
March, S.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Greenall, T.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Snell, Harry


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Snowden, Philip


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Millar, J. D.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Groves, T.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Grundy, T. W.
Morel, E. D.
Stephen, Campbell


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Mosley, Oswald
Sullivan, J.


Hall, F. (York, W.H., Normanton)
Murnin, H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrouuh, West)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hancock, John George
Nichol, Robert
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Harbord, Arthur
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Thornton, M.


Hardie, George D.
O'Grady, Captain James
Trevelyan, C. P.


Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, George Harold
Turner, Ben


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.
Warne, G. H.


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Webb, Sidney


Herrlotts, J.
Phillipps, Vivian
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Weir, L. M.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Potts, John S.
Welsh, J. C.


Hogge, James Myles
Pringle, W. M. R.
Westwood, J.


Irving, Dan
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wheatley, J.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben
White. H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, W.


Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwlch)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jones. R. T. (Carnarvon)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Rose, Frank H.
Wood, Ma]or M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Royce, William Stapleton
Wright, W.


Kenyon, Barnet
Saklatvala. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Lansbury, George
Scrymgeour, E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lawson, John James
Sexton, James



Lee, F.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Linfield, F. C.
Shinwell, Emanuel
Mr. Lunn and Mr. Morgan Jones.


Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, "put, and agreed to.

FISHING INDUSTRY DISPUTE, ABERDEEN.

Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. I gave notice to the Prime Minister yesterday that I would put a question by private notice this afternoon. In accordance with the custom of the House, I asked your permission, Mr. Speaker, to be allowed to put it. I have been informed that I cannot put it, on the ground that the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth) has a question down dealing with the same subject for to-morrow. The question is:
 To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring in a Bill to prohibit German boats from dumping fish at English ports and markets.
I submit that my question had nothing to do with English ports or markets. I was dealing with the dispute at Aberdeen, which is rife at present, which does not involve legislation and is causing untold misery. I submit it was a legitimate question and an urgent one dealing with a matter of very great definite public importance.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not a copy of the question, but the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that at. Question Time yesterday I told the hon. Member for Thanet that a question suggesting a remedy was one of which notice ought to be given. I really forget at the moment what was the suggestion in the right hon. Gentleman's question, but, if there be any doubt, I will let him put it.

Mr. MACPHERSON: My question is to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that the fishing strike in Aberdeen is due to the landing by German trawlers of fish caught in the main in waters accustomed to be fished by British fishermen; whether he is aware that German trawlers are allowed to fish off the coast of Scotland where British trawlers are precluded; and whether, in view of the fact that no settlement of the serious strike at Aberdeen is likely to take place so long as these conditions exist, he will appoint a committee at once to inquire into the matter?

Captain ELLIOT: I understand that the men at Aberdeen have refused to go
to sea owing to the landing by German trawlers of fish caught in Icelandic and North Sea waters, which are open equally to British fishermen. If German trawlers fish in the Moray Firth or in other areas from which British trawlers are excluded, they are prohibited by the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act, 1909, from landing their catch at Aberdeen or at any other port in this country. In these circumstances I do not think that any good purpose would be served by the appointment of a Committee as suggested.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that the protection vessels experience the greatest difficulty in finding where these catches have actually been got?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that German trawlers are allowed to trawl in the Moray Firth, while Scottish trawlers are not allowed to trawl there? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the complaint of the fishermen at Aberdeen, and, indeed, of the fishermen all along the East coast of Scotland, is that these German trawlers not only are allowed to trawl there, but are allowed to deposit their fish, which they say has not been caught in Icelandic waters, but in Scottish waters?

Captain ELLIOT: The right hon. Gentleman's question is whether we are aware that the fishing strike in Aberdeen is due to the landing by German trawlers of fish caught, in the main, in waters accustomed to be fished by British fishermen. In this suggestion, the right hon. Gentleman is under a, misapprehension. The facts of the case show that the dispute at Aberdeen is very largely concerned with the landing of fish caught not within these prohibited waters, which is, after all, a small matter, but the landing of fish caught in Icelandic waters, in which the fishermen of all countries fish.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that Scottish opinion, which ho tries to belittle, says that the fish are not caught, in the main, in those waters, but in waters where no British trawler is allowed to trawl, and that this is an injustice to Scottish fishermen? Further, is he aware that this is part of a very great question affecting the whole of the trawling, illegal and
legal, round the coast of Scotland, and that this particular point in Aberdeen is merely bringing the matter to a definite issue? Is he aware, and is the Prime Minister aware, as Member for a Scottish constituency—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman had better put that question on the Paper.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the Government see that these fish are marked under the Merchandise Marks Act?

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (BAKEHOUSES) BILL.

Mr. GROVES: I beg to move,
 That leave be given to introduce a Bill to prohibit nightwork in bakehouses, and for purposes connected therewith.
The object of my short Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee appointed in 1919, by the Minister of Labour, to inquire into the practice of night work in the bread making and flour confectionery trade. In their Report the Committee recommended prohibition of the employment of persons in night baking, subject to certain exceptions. It is proposed in my Bill to leave it to the Secretary of State to fix by special Order the exceptions to be allowed. This procedure will make it possible to vary the exceptions if circumstances in future should change, and if any modification of the exceptions should be desired by the industry. The special Order will under Section 126 of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, have to be laid before Parliament, and may be annulled by Resolution of either House. In this trade there are 60,000 operatives, and there is a fairly good Parliamentary career in connection with this theme. If ever there was a body of industrial people who have tried by all Constitutional and Parliamentary means, from 1848 to 7919, to get this problem dealt with in order that their social conditions might be bettered, then the operatives engaged in the baking industry can be singled out as being those persons.
May I give some idea of the history of night baking? The system of baking generally practiced in the past was that "early men" came in before the regular
men. The early men used to prepare the dough, and came before 5 o'clock in the morning. According to the Board of Trade itself, night working in the baking industry is understood to be during the hours between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. as long as bakeries were small and the preparation of the manufacture of bread was manipulated by hand, and before the introduction of the system of large bakeries, with the use of their machinery, it may be assumed that the baking of bread by night was carried on to a limited extent only. It was in the large industrial centres that baking of tread by night obtained a hold. Certainly before 1914 night baking was fairly general in England and Wales. The incidence of this depends upon the fact that the production of bread on a large scale is normally accompanied by distribution over a wide area. In this distribution the large producer, whether acting as wholesaler to agents or direct to the consumer, found himself in competition with the small local baker. The latter sold over the counter, or, in any case, distributed only within a very small radius from his shop. In order to be able to get new bread on sale at more or less the same time as his local competitor, the large producer had to resort to the system of night baking. This gave the large producer an advantage in distribution, and the small producer in his turn adopted night work in order to meet his more formidable competitor. Thus we got the unnecessary conditions of night work in the trade. Things became so uncomfortable that in September, 1918, a Whitley Council was formed, which inquired into the whole conditions appertaining to this industry, find the following resolution was carried by that Council:
That nightwork be abolished in the bread and flour bakeries between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., with the exception of dough-makers and oven firemen and their assistants, subject to the discussion of the questions of Sundays, holidays, and break downs.
The operatives connected with the baking industry accepted the findings of the Council, but the master bakers could not agree and therefore they opposed them. Immediately following that, there was industrial friction between the master bakers and the Ministry of Food, which in no sense reflects upon the operatives in connection with this industry. It is not the purpose of my Bill to deal with that
point, but at any rate we had an industrial dispute, and the result of that dispute was that the Minister of Labour in the last Parliament appointed a Government Court of Inquiry. In regarding the evidence and arriving at a conclusion, the Committee stated that they had full regard to the interests 'not only of the workers and their employers, but the people as a whole. The public are, of course, entitled to have their interests safeguarded, and from the point of view of bread and confectionery, the interests of the public mean that they should be able to get upon the breakfast table reasonably fresh bread, at a reasonable price, at a reasonable time, and in a reasonably sufficient quantity.
The Committee appointed in 1919 in their Report say:
 After careful consideration of the evidence and of the various circumstances affecting the industry we have come to the conclusion that the safeguarding of the interests of the people of this country can be done if nightwork in the baking industry is prohibited, provided that certain limitations are imposed. We have come to the conclusion also that the best method of doing this as by an Act of Parliament.
These are the conclusions of a Government Committee and in no sense those of persons connected with our trade union movement. I feel that there is sufficient machinery in existence to arrange any possible differences of opinion between the operatives on the one hand and the employers on the other. The inquiry set up by the Government arrived at the position that it would take, approximately, two years for the baking industry: to adapt itself to the new conditions, and this Bill will leave in the hands of the Government the power to grant the necessary exemptions to any bakers whose machinery or bakehouse is not sufficiently up-to-date to be adapted to the proposed new conditions. I feel sure that the House agrees with me that night work is a social evil, destroys the possibility of good men enjoying home life, takes a man away from his family, and destroys health. The Ministry of Health has issued statistics to prove that night work is detrimental to the health of employés.

Colonel Sir CHARLES BURN: What about the House of Commons?

Mr. GROVES: I am asking you to set an example to yourselves. I trust that hon. Members will not treat this question
in a light-hearted manner, because the baking trade has tried by constitutional means from 1848 to 1919 to have this change made, and the assistance of the Whitley Council and the Ministry of Labour points to the fact that night work can be prohibited in the baking industry and the interests of this great nation safeguarded. I ask leave to introduce this Bill and trust that the Government will be anxious to make this measure of social reform a practical part of the legislation of this country.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: On the spur of the moment I rise to oppose the introduction of this Bill, because through my own fault I did not, know until now that it was on the Order Paper for to-day. I am afraid that I have forgotten some of the details with regard to this question, which is a very old one. No doubt the hon. Member's Bill is much the same as the Bill which was before every Session of the last Parliament. I first took an interest in this question by reason of a joint request from the master bakers and the employés in my constituency, and I took the trouble then to obtain copies of the Reports of the Committees of Inquiry which had investigated the matter. Undoubtedly there are inconveniences in abolishing night baking, and my suggestion is that this is not a Bill which is worth consideration on the floor of the House unless a very strong case is made out that night work is injurious, and the hon. Member did not advance any argument in support of that contention. My very clear recollection of the Report of the Committee on Night Baking is that those who were employed on night baking led, on the whole, much more healthy lives and had a much smaller average of disease and of short lives than those who were engaged on day-time occupations.
The only thing that has been said by way of real argument as to the interests of the operatives was that if they were engaged upon night work they lost their home work. The exact opposite is the fact. Those engaged on night work work shorter hours and get high pay. Instead of being away the whole day engaged in work they have much more time at home than ordinary persons who are engaged in day work. No argument has been put forward to show that this is a Bill to which Parliamentary time should be given
up. On the other hand, all the inquiries have gone to prove that night baking is not an injurious occupation, and many of those engaged in night baking do not want day baking. The fact is that this proposal would interfere greatly with the convenience of those who have to breakfast early and want their bread delivered early. It would also be a great inconvenience, and would cause great loss, to a large number of bakers in different parts of the country who, if this Bill passed, would be, put to great inconvenience and probably driven out of business altogether with the result that the baking trade, which is now such a profitable one to a. large number of small people, would get into the hands of those combines, which hon. Members opposite have been the first to denounce in other cases. For these reasons I think that this Bill is one which the House should not entertain.

Question,
 That leave he given to introduce a Bill to prohibit night work in bakehouses, and for purposes connected therewith

put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Groves, Mr. Morel, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. John Jones, and Mr. Lansbury.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (BAKEHOUSES) BILL,

" to prohibit night work in bakehouses, and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to he read a Second time upon Friday, 20th April, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

HOYLAKE AND WEST KIRBY GAS AND WATER BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir Cyril Cobb to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill); Mr. Turton as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Industrial Assurance Bill
[Lords]); Sir Neville Jodrell as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Bill and the Agricultural Holdings Acts (Amendment) Bill); and Major Barnett as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Performing Animals Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Colonel Leslie 'Wilson.]

Orders of the Day — EMPIRE TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT.

4.0.P.M.

Captain Viscount EDNAM: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
 this House, whilst fully desirous of promoting the re-establishment of our relations with European countries on the basis of mutual advantage, urges His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to bring about the fullest possible extension of trade within the Empire and the development of the resources of the Empire in close co-operation with the authorities of the overseas portions of the Empire.
The fortune of the Ballot has given me au opportunity of raising a question, which, so far as I know, has not been discussed in this House for some considerable time. It is of interest to many hon. Members, to the commercial and industrial community throughout the world, and to the people of our Empire as a whole. The Prime Minister, in his election address, treated this subject of Imperial trade development as one of the utmost importance, and, in view of the Imperial Economic Conference, which is to assemble in London on the 1st October this year, it is wise that we should review our present Imperial trade position, and consider what further steps can be taken by the Imperial Government in the immediate future with a view to strengthening our trading relations with the component parts of the Empire on the basis of the Resolutions passed by the Imperial Conferences of 1917 and 1918. I hope, when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade replies to the Debate, that he will be able to inform the House that the Government have a definite policy for the further development of our Imperial trade and of Imperial resources, and have in view practical schemes which can either be carried into
effect at once or else put clown upon the Agenda for discussion at the forthcoming Conference. I hope also that he will be able to tell the House what are to be the Terms of Reference of this Conference and what subjects it is proposed to put down for discussion.
It appears to me, although there has been a great deal of talk about this question during the last two years, although frequent conferences have been assembled, although resolutions have been passed and although Committees have been set up, yet very little has been actually accomplished, and that the time has come when this question should be dealt with practicably rather than theoretically. We are up against a grave economic situation unparalleled in the history of the world, resulting in trade depression and serious want and unemployment. The measures which have been adopted so far, sound though they may be, are inadequate to cope successfully with this immediate crisis. Something wider and more definite is required. Moreover, we have not the time to delay in coming to a decision of policy. Immediate action is necessary, or it will be too late. It is of vital importance, for this reason, that generalities and further resolutions should be dropped and that the Government should adopt a concrete policy on a scale sufficient to lead to the rapid development of our Empire and the consequent solution of many of the acute problems with which we are faced, that the Imperial Government should decide what can be immediately done within the sphere of Government action, and that at this year's Conference the Government and the representatives of the overseas portions of the Empire should mutually agree upon further schemse of organisation which can be put in hand later.
There are other reasons why delay in coming to a decision of policy and delay in acting upon the Resolutions of past Conferences is having a harmful effect. Firstly, as I understand it, schemes which have been outlined by Colonial and Dominion Governments in connection with the Empire Settlement Act and the development of Imperial resources, shipping, communications, and so on, are being held up in the absence of a settled policy by the Imperial Government. Secondly, the interests of the Empire as a
whole are being gravely threatened by the economic development of foreign countries. For instance, the United States of America are making a determined and so far extremely successful attempt to capture Canadian trade. Some figures recently published by the Guaranty Trust Company of New York show that out of 652,000,000 dollars of new capital sent abroad by the United States in1922, 156,000,000 were sent to Canada and Newfoundland. The bulk of Canadian financial requirements is being supplied by America. The result of this was that in 1922 our share of the Canadian import trade was only 16 per cent., as compared with America's share of 72 per cent.; although we take over 51 per cent. of the Canadian exports, while America takes only 30 per cent. In the same way, though on a smaller scale, American capital is finding its way into Australia and South Africa. The third reason is that the fact of passing unanimous resolutions at. Imperial Conferences and then not giving effect to those resolutions damages Imperial unity. It tends to make such an important event as an Imperial Conference meaningless and leads toward Empire disintegration. We have passed the era of mere pious resolutions at such conferences. Far better for the Imperial Government to refuse to accept these resolutions than, having accepted them, to neglect to act upon them because it is politically inconvenient to do so. An obligation of honour should rest upon all Governments of the Empire, who, having accepted such resolutions, through their representatives, should give legislative or administrative effect to them in their countries, even in face of possible hostile opinion from organisations of vested interests. That especially applies to the Imperial Government. They should give, a bold lead in this respect. They have done much as regards Empire settlement and migration, but that is only a beginning.
This ideal of Imperial development is in no way opposed to every practical and possible assistance being given simultaneously to the development of foreign markets, to the reconstruction of our European markets, and to the development of foreign countries themselves. In the resolutions of former Imperial Conferences clauses were inserted safeguarding the interests of foreign countries, and. particularly the interests of our Allies.
But increased productivity is the panacea for the post-War burdens of the whole world. And surely there is a far more fertile field of productivity within the boundaries of the Empire than in the devastated countries of Europe. That was true before the War in the full prosperity of Europe. How much truer is it to-day under existing economic conditions? The loss of our Russian markets, the collapse of our European markets, and the decrease of our Eastern markets make it imperative that we should develop this field in order to find fresh markets for our manufactures. Therefore, not only will it pay us from an Imperial point of view far more to concentrate upon the development of Imperial trade and 'Imperial resources rather than to concentrate upon foreign trade and foreign resources, but increased prosperity will come also to foreign countries with whom trading relations will inevitably be opened up.
Even before the War our foreign trade was declining in value year by year as compared with our Empire trade, as figures clearly show. This was due to the increasing protective policy pursued by many of these countries. Since the War these tariff walls have grown higher and even yet more numerous, and there are a larger number of economic areas in the world than formerly. I will not weary the House by quoting quantities of figures, but, as proof of my argument, I would like just to give some of our export percentages to the Empire in 1913 and in 1922. In 1913, 37.2 per cent. of our total exports went to the British Empire, and in 1922, 40 per cent. In 1913, the four Dominions imported goods from the United Kingdom to the value of £6 per head of population, whereas our four principal foreign customers imported goods to the value of only £1 per head of population. In 1922, these figures rose to £7 10s. per head in the case of the four Dominions and to only £I 17s. per head in the case of the same four foreign customers. In 1913, 47 per cent. of the total export tonnage of iron and steel went to the British Empire, and in 1922 this figure rose to 52 per cent. One of the most important resolutions that was passed at the 1918 Conference was as follows:
 The time has arrived when all encouragement should he given to the development of Imperial resources, and especially
to making the Empire independent of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials, and essential industries. With these objects in view, this Conference expresses itself in favour of (1) the principle that each part of the Empire, having due regard to the interests of our Allies, shall give specially favourable treatment to the produce and manufactures of other parts of the Empire; and (2) arrangements by which intending emigrants from the United Kingdom may be induced to settle in countries under the British flag.
As regards the second part of that Resolution dealing with Empire migration, the primary step has been taken by the Imperial Government under the Empire Settlement Act and the organisation under that Act administered by the Overseas Settlement Committee. That in itself is not enough. Development requires material capital as well as human capital. Every encouragement, if necessary by financial and legislation assistance, should be given by the Imperial Government to the development of railways, harbours, shipping, communications, and air transport, medical improvements, scientific experiments, and so on in every part of the Empire where increased productivity is most likely to result. Statistics show the immense value of these undeveloped resources and how with proper organisation the Empire could be made entirely self-sufficing both in foodstuffs and in raw material—and yet have enough of both these commodities left over to supply a large portion of the rest of the world. I maintain that the lesson of modern history is self sufficiency. The War found the Empire unprepared in that respect, and we suffered in consequence, and it would be criminal if we did not ensure for future safety by taking every advantage of that lesson. Self sufficiency, as far as certain existing commodities produced within the Empire are concerned, is not so much a matter of stimulating the production of those commodities as of directing a portion of those commodities to British markets which at present are sent to foreign markets, and of ourselves importing from within the Empire those same commodities which at present we import from abroad. Another argument in favour of developing the resources and particularly the resources in raw materials of the Empire is that the more raw material we buy from the peoples of the overseas portions of the Empire, the more we shall
increase the volume of our import trade from within the Empire, the more credits they will pile up in this country and the more manufactured goods they will buy from us.
With regard to the first part of the Amendment, dealing with Imperial Preference, effect has been given to the principle of preferential tariffs in each succeeding Budget since 1919. The effect of this can be seen in the increased volume of Empire trade since that year. It seems to me that this principle could well be extended on the basis of existing tariffs, and as additional commodities are normally made subject to customs duty, with beneficent results both to ourselves and to the overseas portion of the Empire. I gather that the general feeling in the Dominions and the Colonies is that we do not reciprocate sufficiently from this country, and there seems to be some justification for that feeling. For instance, Australia gives us preferences, which in the year 1991 were valued at nearly £9,000,000. The total value of British preferences to Australia in the same year was only £257,000, of which £239,000 was on wines and only £18,000 on other products. Before the War it used to be argued that the protective benefit of the British Navy was an adequate compensating advantage for the lack of reciprocity in preferential tariffs. But, in consideration of the magnificent part which the Dominions and Colonies played in finding assistance during the War, I must say I feel that this argument is no longer as strong as formerly.
With regard to administrative preferences, the Conference of 1918 reaffirmed the resolution of the Conference of 1902, that, in all Government contracts, whether in the case of the Colonial or the Imperial Government, it is desirable that, as far as practicable, the products of the Empire should be preferred to those of foreign countries. I submit that since the War the terms of that Resolution have not been as closely adhered to as is desirable, and I suggest that a better understanding between Governments and Trade Commissioners might lead to more Governmental contracts being placed within the Empire and less with foreign countries than is at present the case. This, in itself, will greatly increase our Imperial trade and strengthen Imperial unity
I hope I have not given the impression that in pushing forward a wide policy of Imperial trade development I desire to see the Imperial Government or the Government of any other portion of the Empire, attempting to control that trade by means of intricate legislation or bureaucratic interference. I am as much opposed to State interference in trade and industry as any Member of the House. The future success of inter-Empire trade will depend, in the main, upon the energy and enterprise of the private individuals and private concerns engaged in it, and also on the toughness and grit of future settlers. Nor do I wish, even if it were possible in any way, that the autonomous powers of any portion of the Empire should be decreased. Rather as time goes on will they necessarily be increased, but it is for the Imperial Government, in the closest possible co-operation and agreement with the authorities of all portions of the Empire, to make a start, and point out the way in regard to trade development. It is their duty to organise; it is their duty to frame schemes, and. to see that the utmost publicity is given to those schemes. It is their duty to give the widest possible scope to private enterprise. It is their duty to legislate where legislation is required, and to give financial assistance where such is possible and wise.
Before the War about £150,000,000 of public issues of capital, apart from private investments, was sent abroad every year from these shores. Of that amount, over one-half went to foreign countries, while under one-half went to the Dominions, and only 5 per cent. went to the Crown Colonies. A large part of this capital will always, of course, find its way to foreign countries to assist in their development, but I submit too much capital is being invested from this country abroad, and an insufficient amount is being invested within the Empire. I believe that every pound invested from this country in some Imperial development scheme is equal in its value to future trade and future prosperity to £3 invested abroad, and I hope the Government will devise some means of directing more and more capital every 'year from this country towards the development of our Imperial heritage. We are not worthy possessors of that heritage unless we do everything in our power to develop it. I do not underrate
the magnitude of the task, but this country and the Empire has never flinched from undertaking great tasks, and this task is no greater than that which together we undertook during the War. The close of the American Civil War found America exhausted, maimed, depressed and impoverished. She realised that the whole of her future prosperity depended upon concentrating the whole of her national energies on the development of those vast potential resources which Nature had placed at her disposal. During the next. 40 years she developed and expanded to a greater extent than during the whole previous period of her history. We find ourselves in much the same position at the close of the European War. If we emulate her example, we shall find that within the confines of our own Empire lies the key to those great post-War problems which at present appear to us to be almost beyond solution. The Empire is a worldwide force, and the neglect of Imperial resources is equal to the neglect of the world's interests. It is our bounden duty to take all measures to develop those resources. It is our duty not only to ourselves, not only to all those who reside within and without the Empire's boundaries, but it is our duty also to our children and to our children's children, and to those grand old pioneers who bequeathed to us these incomparable possessions.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I rise with great diffidence at any time to address this honourable House. I do so to-day with even greater diffidence than usual, because I am aware that I am surrounded by hon. Friends who have made a life study of this, one of the outstanding questions of the day. My sole qualification, for what it is worth—and that.I fear is not very much— is that it has been my good fortune to have visited very many parts of this great Empire of ours, and for the last 20 years to have been associated in some degree with the various institutions in this country which are doing their best to link up the constituent parts of our mighty Empire. Love of Empire, thank Heaven, is not a party question, and all parts of this House are united in doing all they can to assist in the development of British Imperial resources. Naturally we occasionally approach the subject from
different angles, but I cannot help thinking that by frank and straightforward statements we may endeavour to agree upon as many points as we possibly can and then proceed to put those points into action without undue delay. The steady growth of our Imperial trade was for a long time taken for granted. It worked smoothly, for we did not realise its complexities until the War dislocated its machinery. There has been much introspection since.
To realise something of Empire development and incidentally to gain considerable encouragement to-day, we can look back to the termination in 1815 of the last great struggle before the world War. We found ourselves then in the same troubles as we are in to-day, and with almost the same burden of debt in relation to our national income. At that period Great Britain ceased to be an exporter of grain and became an importer, and, as we know now to our cost, three-quarters of our people rely upon imports of that all-important material. England and Wales in those days had merely 150 individuals to the square mile, whereas at the beginning of this century they had no less than 550. We undertook the development of our home resources, and for over 50 years easily led the world. In 1870 came a reaction, and for 30 years our exports of wholly or partly manufactured goods remained practically stationary. Of these goods in 1870 we exported £136,000,000 in value, and in 1900 £138,000,000, so that our exports were only up £2,000,000, but at the same time our export of manufactured goods to the Empire rose from £44,000,000 in 1870 to £81,000,000 in 1900, so that we can say that at this very difficult period of time the Empire market undoubtedly saved this country. If we had realised this fact then, and taken full advantage of it, with all the energy of which our race is capable, a very different story might have been written to-day, for although the aggregate amount of our exports to the Dominions has increased since then, the proportion to the total amount has considerably diminished.
From the beginning of this century up to the period of the War, as we all know, our exports to our Dominions and to India increased, and in many cases increased enormously. The Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey (Viscount Ednam) has given
one or two interesting figures in reference to the export of British manufactured goods to the Dominions in 1913. From the point of view of the value of the amount exported in proportion to population, it is interesting to note that, comparing the export to our own Dominions with that to Europe and North and South America, 21,000,000 whites as against 500,000,000 whites, we find that from the point of view of trade one white Briton overseas is equal to 11 white foreigners, which, from the point of view of employment here, I think underlines very seriously the enormous importance of doing all we can to keep our migrants under the Union Jack. The same trade to the Crown Colonies with a population of 37,000,000 equals 13s. 6d. per head, as compared with the trade to China and Japan, with 480,000,000, at 1s. 4d. a head, showing that the average coloured Briton from the point of view of trade is worth as much as 12 Chinese and Japanese. Lastly, in that same year, the last year before the War, our export of manufactured goods to British India was equal to the export of our manufactured goods to Germany, France, and the United States of America combined. Although these increases seem satisfactory, we must remember that relatively we have been dropping behind, and there is therefore a very great scope for intensive effort to maintain and increase our trade with our kinsmen overseas. We have many keen and acute commercial rivals abroad, who are doing all they possibly can to take this trade away from us, and we can afford to leave nothing to chance, for by our overseas trade this country sinks or swims.
As far as concerns the subject of the Empire products themselves, they are absolutely limitless, as anyone who has had the opportunity of going round this great Empire will agree. I read the other day a most interesting article by one who was for many a long year a very respected Member of this House, and in due course Colonial Secretary, the present Lord Long, upon the development. of Empire trade, and in that article there was contained an approximate list of the products of the British Empire, a perfectly amazing list. I would that that list could be placarded throughout the length and breadth of this land, so that the people in every section of this community could realise what this wonderful
old Empire of ours does possess. We know to a certain extent. We remember well how very many of these raw materials poured into us in the dark days of August, 1914, from every end of the Empire, from every one of our great Dominions, and every island from Mauritius to the Caribbees. We can, I think, congratulate those who are responsible for the Department of Overseas Trade upon the excellent work which that Department has clone since its initiation, and we know that equally excellent work is being done in the Dominions by analogous Departments. That we were correct in creating his Department I think is shown by that great trading community, the United States, which has paid us the compliment of copying it as closely as can be done.
The Noble Lord, in moving this Amendment referred, to administrative preference. As far as my humble voice can carry, I wish to support what he suggested, namely, that every loan which is raised in this City of London—this wonderful city which has not only endless wealth but endless experience with which to assist our communities overseas—that every pound, as far as possible, raised in every loan in the City of London for the Dominions overseas is spent in this country or in the Empire. Just a word upon the very important subjects of transportation and communication. A Shipping Committee was formed in June, 1920, which has dealt, as we know, with various useful points, and others are under consideration. Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Government can tell us of any other points which are likely to be settled by this Committee, I do not know, but there is no belittling the need for the closest form of communication by sea in an Empire such as is ours. The same statement holds good with reference to our cable service and the, newer form of wireless. I do not think there is any community on earth which is more liable than ours to be affected by a cheapening of these services or by a greater facility to the members of the community in the use of them. We are a community scattered over the whole of the Seven Seas, and we ought to do all we can to reduce, in every way, our rates both for cables and for wireless, as well as to
develop the facilities not only for the Press, but for business houses and private individuals.
I look forward to the day—and I do not think it will be in the very distant future—when every Briton at home is able to speak to any of his kinsmen in the Dominions for a trifling sum. Three years ago I was in the middle of the Atlantic, and within the course of about five minutes was enabled to speak with friends in Essex and also with friends on the American Continent. That was, as I say, three years ago, and this science has advanced very rapidly. I do not see that it should be at all impossible, particularly under a Postmaster-General who has always proved himself to be a pioneer, to develop this wonderful science enormously within the next two or three years. The same thing holds good with regard to broadcasting, another new development of science, which I believe can be of enormous use to the British Empire, and particularly to the scattered communities. I cannot think of anything more useful, for instance, for the many small islands of the West Indies, which are hardly connected at all, than that Empire news and Empire trade information should be broadcasted, as received, once or twice a day.
It is impossible, of course, for the Government to do everything. It is a very good thing, perhaps, that that is the case, but both officially and unofficially we want to do all we possibly can to develop our Empire trade, and in this connection I do not know that any institution has done better work than an institution to which I am proud to belong, which has enabled Members of this House to meet Ministers and members from every other Parliament overseas, and to discuss with them in probably the best of all ways, the informal way, such questions as the development of overseas trade; I refer to the Empire Parliamentary Association, which has been so well and ably carried on during the last 11 years. We all heard with the greatest possible pleasure, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, the all-important news that at last the Economic Conference has been definitely arranged and that we shall have the opportunity of giving a "Welcome home "—and long may those words ring true—to the Prime Ministers of our great Dominions, and of thrashing out with
them this all-important subject. I do not know whether it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to give us any suggestion as to the proposals which are to be made by this country, but, if so, I am sure they will be listened to with the greatest possible interest by this House.
May I also support what the Noble Lord said concerning resolutions which are unanimously passed at these Conferences? It seems to me that unless these resolutions are put into action, after being unanimously passed, it is small compliment to those who come tens of thousands of miles to assemble here and discuss them, and small inducement to them to come over again. May I also hope that, following this Conference, there will again be an opportunity for Members of this House to meet private Members of the Dominions Parliaments in London. Such a meeting has taken place before, to the very great benefit of those who have much to learn from one another. There was a suggestion made some years ago, in a wonderfully interesting speech by Lord Rosebery, at the First Imperial Press Conference, that the time had arrived to put the Members of the House of Commons on one of our warships, and, after the Vote of Supplies in any one year, to send them round to see the Empire. I cannot imagine anything, if it were only practicable, which would be of more use, for no one can appreciate this great Empire of ours to the full unless he has had the opportunity of seeing some of its component parts.
The second Section of this Amendment deals with the huge field of Empire resources. Seven years ago a Committee, of which I had the privilege of being a member, was formed, which was known as the Empire Resources Development Committee, the first Chairman of which was Lord Milner, who was followed afterwards by the late Lord Grey. Many most interesting subjects were thrashed out by that Committee, the material of all of which is available, should it at any time be required. If any of these great schemes are ever put into working order, I should like to suggest that, if possible, w hen large profits are made, which I believe would be the case, some form of ultimate profit might be extracted to
relieve the taxpayer of this community, who after all is the individual who guarantees British loans. The Noble Lord has laid some stress on the wonderful recovery by the United States after the Civil War. It was one of the most amazing recoveries in the history of the world, from the point of view of trade, a recovery in which assets of £300,000,000 were put up to assets worth to-day £40,000,000,000. But, great as are the resources of that wonderful country of 48 independent States, they are as nothing compared with the resources of the great British Empire.
In the meantime, what I feel is the best suggestion that one can venture to make to the President of the Board of Trade is that he should go ahead at once with utility schemes, particularly in the Crown Colonies, for if that be done trade will immediately follow on the opening up of those wonderfully rich sections of the Crown. And let us, in that respect, do all that we possibly can to encourage private enterprise. We have seen, not only in the Crown Colonies, but in the great Dominions, what private enterprise can do. I do not suppose there is any more classic example—and those who have been over it will endorse everything I say—than that wonderful railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is one of the greatest business institutions in the world. We have recollections of the wonderful work in the creation of the Assouan Dam, which cost, I think, something like £5,000,000, and is computed to have increased the wealth of Egypt by no less than £100,000,000. In the Sudan we have done much to increase the output of cotton for Lancashire. We have irrigated lands there, connected the area of the Red Sea by rail, and built a port, with the result that a good deal of cash has flown into the Sudan from that effort.
A good friend of mine on the Benches opposite, in the debate on Empire migration the other day, said, "Go ahead and develop these islands." I quite agree with my hon. Friend. Let us go ahead and develop these islands, but let us also go ahead and develop our great Empire. I am perfectly convinced we possess in this country sufficient men of power and capacity to do both, and let me say to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), who made that suggestion, that when I have been in different
parts of the Empire, I have found many men from that great race which he so ably represents, the first part of whose names so often begins with Mac, taking a leading part in those over seas developments. Every Department has facts and figures galore on this subject. What we want at the present moment is action. We want it now, and I believe, if we can only take that requisite action, this House and this country will give full support to the Government to go full steam ahead. Twenty years ago, it was my privilege to serve in a very humble capacity under a great statesman who made the Colonial Office a living force, the late Joseph Chamberlain. May I conclude with a statement made by him which is as true to-day as it was when he made it in 1903?
 We have an Empire which, with decent organisation and consolidation, might be absolutely self-sustaining. There is no article of your food, no raw material of your trade, no necessity of your lives, no luxury of your existence, which cannot be produced somewhere or other in the British Empire, if the British Empire holds together, and if we who have inherited it are worthy of our opportunities.
It is our duty and privilege to prove ourselves worthy of this task.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame): My Noble Friend who moved the Amendment, said that he had been fortunate in the Ballot. I think all those who have heard his speech will feel that the House has been fortunate also—fortunate not only in hearing his admirable speech, but fortunate that, having got, the coveted place, in the Ballot, he has put down for consideration an Amendment which raises a question of policy of such vital interest to all the people of this country, as well as to our fellow-subjects overseas. I think in all quarters of the House it will be agreed that the policy which is set out in the Amendment is a sound and a, wise policy. It is a policy which appeals at once to our instincts and to our common sense, and the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon, both by my Noble Friend and by my hon. Friend, who has not only often spoken on this subject, but has given many years of his life in working for the policy enshrined in the:Motion, have supplied ample reasons both to justify our sentiments and to justify our common sense. The Amend-
ment sets out what is the whole purpose of the Economic Conference, which is going to assemble in this country next October, and I think in all quarters of the House the announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend, that, in spite of many difficulties, all the Dominions will be represented at the Economic Conference, and that, with one unfortunate exception—and no one can but regret the absence of the Prime Minister of New Zealand—they will all be represented at the Imperial Conference which will take place at the same time, has been received with general satisfaction. I agree at once—and I am sure I shall be expressing, not only the sentiments of those who go into this Conference on behalf of His Majesty's Government here, but of all those who represent the Dominions—that this should be a Conference not devoted to pious resolutions, but conducted on business lines. That is certainly the purpose and spirit with which we shall enter it.
I say that this Motion, and the policy it sets out, appeal to our instincts and our common sense. The sentiment needs no justification. Surely it is natural that we should want to do more business with our own people. They are our beet customers, to put it on the most sordid ground. Per head they do pounds of trade with us where other people do shillings. They have given our markets a preference, and, even if that were not the case, the natural instincts of our people would be to develop the land of our own Empire. Not only does this policy appeal to our sentiments, but consideration of the economic facts as they exist to-day justifies to the full the wisdom of the policy as a practical policy. To-day there is a serious deficit in our export trade. At the beginning of 1922, there was a deficit of 35 per cent. in our export trade. By the end of 1922, we had reduced that deficit to 25 per cent., and in the first month of this year it was reduced to the neighbourhood of 20 per cent. But if we are to cure unemployment, there is only one way to do it, and that is to wipe out all that deficit of trade, and to do something more, because even if you were to restore the complete volume of trade which we did before the War, the efficiency of production to-day is so much greater than it was 10 years ago—the efficiency of plant, as well as human efficiency—that
to get the same volume of trade, we will not employ the same volume of people. This efficiency is essential—and these are economic facts from which you cannot get away—because if we arc to keep markets at all, we have got to produce in the most efficient and economical way possible.
It means you have got to restore as much as you can the old countries, and as that is going to be a very long process in many countries which have been impoverished and brought into chaos through the War, you have to find new markets, and nowhere will you find them half so quickly or so well as in our Dominions. You will give at the same time to your people opportunities, which no one who considers the position seriously can talk about as a form of exile, which are the best opportunities that can be given to people of every class. It is a commonplace, I think, on both sides that, as time goes on, this country becomes over-industrialised, that the balance of population is not only economically unsound, but absolutely dangerous. Given the best development of agriculture in this country, you are not going to solve that problem of the right redistribution of population. The redistribution and the balance between industrial and agricultural production must lie in the whole field of the Empire, and in the development of those Imperial agricultural resources can give the complimentary opportunity for the full development of the industrial resources in this country. My hon. Friend who seconded this Motion gave a very interesting illustration drawn from the past. He was profoundly right. It is a fact that from 1850 to 1875 the country had a period of easy prosperity, when we only had to produce in order to be able to sell, when a manufacturer had the world at his feet. Then there came, after the Franco-German War, a long period of unexampled depression, and in that period of depression, when our population increased by 8,000,000, when our exports to foreign countries remained absolutely stationary, one thing, and one thing alone, saved this country, and that was that within 15 years our exports of manufactures within the Empire almost doubled. That example of history is surely at once the best lesson and the best hope that we can have in deciding our policy to-day.
5.0 P.M.
Let me put another fact to the House. I think it was my Noble Friend who moved the Amendment who drew attention to the fact that in 1913 our exports to the Empire represented something like 37 or 38 per cent. of our total export trade. Last year the proportion was about the same. That is true. It is also true to say, as has often been said, that, the fact that, in spite of the general upheaval there has been, in spite of the vicissitudes and changes, the general course of trade while it diminished tended to go so much through the same channel, is a great instance of the inter-dependence of trade, and a great reason for trying to restore stable conditions where ever you can. While it is true, does it not teach us something else? We know that the building up of stable conditions in some of the countries of Europe must be a long and slow process. We know that in those countries you have got industrial production built up in the course of the War by those who were belligerents in order to supply their own needs, and by those who were neutrals to supply the inexhaustible demands which the belligerent countries made during the War. Those two facts—the fact that the complete restoration of economic conditions in Europe must be slow and the fact that, even if you restore those conditions, you will always have keen competitive production—point to this, that, if we are to wipe out our deficit, we cannot be content merely to let trade take its own course, but we must make new channels for trade and develop new trade and new markets by our own initiative. The study of the conditions here alone may do a good deal. One of my hon. Friends drew attention to the fact that, whereas our volume of trade with the different Dominions had increased, our actual proportion of the total imports into those Dominions was relatively smaller to-day than it was compared to their total importation 10 or 20 years ago. I am certain that with a closer study of the conditions of the Dominion markets, we can greatly increase the amount of trade we are doing with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) paid a sincere and well-deserved tribute to the Trade Commissioners. Time after time men engaged in commerce have said to me that they have
been able to do business where they did not do business before, and to find new business owing to the initiative of our Trade Commissioners. We mean to go on and develop that work. In Canada we shall open a new office in Vancouver and. we shall keep open the office in Winnipeg. We also propose to develop that work in India. We are to establish two Trade Commissioners more in India—a wise course and one which the United States of America have already decided to take. My hon. Friend referred to another fact which I think he was inclined to regard as a serious disadvantage more than I should. He said there was a larger investment of American capital in Canada. I am not sorry to see that. It does not follow that, because American capital is invested in Canada, Canada is to deal exclusively with the United States and in United States products. About 50 or 60 years ago there was a tremendous influx of British capital into the United States. That was good for this country, but it was good also in the long run for the United States themselves. I am sure that to-day we have a great opportunity as against the United States, owing to the economic conditions which prevail. A country cannot adopt a policy of exclusive protection and at the same time do a great export trade. The United States are bound to find that; they cannot have it both ways. If, in addition to having a very high and exclusive tariff, you are the fortunate recipient of the gold and the debt payments which other countries send you, there can be no possible doubt that a country in that position is in the worst possible position to do a large export trade, and that is the vital moment when manufacturers and merchants of this country should make their way in the markets where American competition was keenest before.
Let me take another point. The fact that we are paying our American debt makes it of greater importance than ever that we should grow our raw materials as far as possible within the Empire itself and as little as possible in the country to which we have to make these large payments. Within the Dominions and the Crown Colonies there are resources which can supply practically all the raw materials that we draw from
America to-day. The wheat position has often been referred to, but take what is next in importance to food—cotton. You have a dangerous position in the cotton industry to-day. You have got an industry relying to a preponderating extent upon American sources of supply. That, in the economic relation in which we stand to America to-day, is a bad thing in itself. But, in addition to that-, you have a source of supply in America which is diminishing, while at the same time home consumption in America is increasing. Within the Colonies for which we are trustees and of which we are the responsible administrators, we have ready to our hand the soil on which that cotton can be grown. We shall discuss on Friday a Bill which will enable the great cotton industry to join in the work which the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation is carrying on. But while that scientific work is being done, that work is useless unless at the same time we develop the transport, the irrigation arid the whole of the natural resources on which that cotton can be grown. I would say at once that this is a policy which we propose to pursue actively.
As regards the development of the Crown Colonies, there is no need to wait; we know their resources and we know what is needed to develop those resources; we know the mutual trade which will flow from their development. The programme of development is ready, but what is the position? You have a programme of development which, if these Crown Colonies are left to carry it out by the resources which they can draw from within their own territory, must take them 10, or 15 or 20 years. If, on the other hand, we, by a wise use of our credit, are able to tide them over the initial period which they cannot afford to face at once, we are anticipating a development which might take 10 to 15 years to come. We will be placing immediate orders in this country, and we will be spending the money, not in unnecessary relief work in this country, which would only be undertaken on account of very great unemployment. We are anticipating a revenue-producing work; we are anticipating the creation of wealth and the production of raw material in these Colonies, and we arc placing orders in this country and creating mutual trade for generations to I come. That policy will be actively pur-
sued by the Colonial Office. I think no legislation is required for it; but it will require a Vote by this House in order to authorise a contribution being made by the Imperial Government.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the Government intend to ask the House for the necessary Vote in regard to any of the money required for the development of the Crown Colonies?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No doubt it will be done this Session. The plans of a number of these schemes are ready, and they can be put with reasonable speed into force, and certainly there will be no delay on the part of the Colonial Office in the holding up any scheme. The Government will certainly come to ask the authority of the House to make the necessary advances as soon as the schemes are ready for which these advances are required.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: These advances will not be made without the authority of the House?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir. But the Government will come to the House for the authority and I am convinced that this House will give the Government that authority. With regard to the Dominions, the Whole policy of the Government will be to co-operate with them in schemes which will accelerate trade. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment realises how wide are the powers the House has already given to the Colonial Office. There are many schemes which can be dealt with under' the Empire Settlement Act. Powers are given to spend up to £3,000,000 in each financial year on any approved scheme. These schemes may be either development or land settlement schemes or schemes for facilitating settlement or emigration to any part of His Majesty's Dominions overseas by advances for passages and allowances for training or otherwise. These may be made by way of grant or by way of loan or otherwise.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any restriction upon the manner in which the £3,000,000 yearly mentioned may be used?
For instance, can it be used to guarantee interest on capital. Take a project that requires £10,000,000 capital. The interest on this at 5 per cent. is £500,000 a year. Could that be guaranteed out of this fund? If so, it is a point of great importance as it greatly increases the possibility of the fund.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, most certainly it could, and that is exactly the point. I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his interruption, for I wanted to bring that out. It is not a case of dealing piece-meal with this matter, of settling half-a-dozen settlers here and half-a-dozen there. That is not going to solve the problem of emigation. What we want is a big scheme which will absorb large numbers of our people, and that must le dealt with on a wholesale scale, if I may put it so, by the development of large territories and the consequent laying down of railways and making of roads to serve them. All that follows in the way of natural development, and the whole of what I have in mind can be brought within the terms of this Act, and was so intended by the House when it passed this Act. I make no doubt at all that this should be dealt with as a broad business effort, and that is the way in which my hon. Friends who have been so active in this matter are administering the Act, and will, I believe, continue to do it.
Much, therefore, can be done within the Act, and these powers will be used to the full. But we certainly shall not stop there. We shall take up at the Imperial Conference the whole question of co-operation with the Dominions and with the State Governments of the Dominions as to the development of their resources. We shall certainly consider communications to which my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) referred. I would join with him in the tribute which he paid to Sir Holford Mackinder, the Chairman of the Committee, for the admirable work he and the Committee have already done. We shall also consider the question of Preference, and the possibilities of expansion which surely there are, and I agree entirely with the hon. Member when he said that a conference of this kind was no use unless everybody who went into it could go in and say quite frankly how far they were able to go and what were their difficul-
ties, their powers, and their limitations. Certainly I know that all those who enter into that conference will go into it with the intention so far as the circumstances of the individual State permit, with the common object, whether it be by preference or whether it be by financial cooperation, to develop their mutual resources to the best advantage.
There are many ways in which that may be done. There are, I know, difficulties in the way of almost any scheme which may be put forward. One may say in one case this will have certain reactions upon credit. I am, however, convinced that a frank discussion between the Government of this country and the Governments of the Dominions with the intention, so far as practicable, of using the credit of this country for the promotion of big schemes of development within the Empire, for promoting big schemes of emigration which must be for the ultimate advantage of both sides will be to the good. We are not going into this Conference to get something out of it merely for ourselves, and for our people at the expense of others. Both and all are equally interested. It means for the Dominions an accretion of population, and it means also, we hope, immediate orders for goods in this country and opportunities for our people. The link which is needed for that development, the link which we shall go into the Imperial Conference with the intention of forging is the link of how we can best use our credit in order that we and the Dominions may co-operate in schemes to our common advantage.
This is no dream of theorists. It is practical politics of a. most practical kind. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) has reproved me on many occasions for my outlook on these matters. I am going to quote to him an authority on finance as practical, as wise, almost as conservative, though perhaps a little more imaginative than is the right hon. Baronet. I refer to the chairman of Barclay's Bank, Mr. Goodenough. In his annual speech to the shareholders of the bank this year Mr. Goodenough said this:
The effect of the Fordney Tariff, however, must be to compel us to seek new sources of supply of foodstuffs and raw materials, and to develop markets in other parts of the world for our trade.
Moreover, in this way, we shall still use the products of our industry, we shall reap the fruit of the policy of Empire development upon which so much of British resource and enterprise has been spent in the past. It is a re-assuring prospect in the face of what could otherwise not fail to be a paralysing blow. It is a prospect worthy of our energies and our ambitions, and of the great traditions of our race. It is a policy of consolidation, but coupled with expansion and progress. In the development of this great policy we shall lighten and relieve the losses that we have suffered in the War, and in its aftermath. It will afford great opportunities for employment and advancement both for men and for women who are ready to take advantage of them. It will afford our people an outlet to satisfy the natural desire for progress and for betterment which is perhaps one of the fundamental causes of much of the unrest of the present time.
May I draw the attention of the right hon. Baronet to this:
 There are many ways by which such a policy may be encouraged and matured The Dominions and Colonies of the Empire can invite our would-lm settlers there, If they are experiencing a wave of depression to-day it is partly for want of population which is the first essential to trade, and we on our part, can and should provide the funds for fresh development.

Sir F. BANBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the result of the British Trade Corporation?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, Sir, I have, and if the British Trade Corporation had traded more within the British Empire, the result probably would have been different. I continue:
The London market can make loans, but besides this direct advances might be made by the British Government to promote schemes of development in their initial stages until such a period as they are ripe for the attention of the permanent investor.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What about the risks?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: You must take some risk, and that would be better than embracing the fantastic schemes which the hon. and gallant Member and his friends put forward. In those there is no possible risk in the sense that there is no possible prospect of success.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Which scheme?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: All schemes of the kind. The chairman of one of our greatest banks was prepared to advocate
our policy of development, the using of our credit, and of co-operation as has been outlined. But the right hon. Baronet deals with the position in which we now are placed on the plane that you can do nothing at all. That is not the position to take up. You cannot face the question of unemployment or questions of development in that way. This House is not prepared to face these questions in the way of the right hon. Baronet. He knows quite well that the matter does not lie between doing nothing and the development of our Empire; it lies between this perpetual procession of outdoor relief and the chance of developing the resources which will give an opportunity to our men. These are practical contributions to the problem. I believe that in this country our people are as anxious to cooperate with the Dominions as the Dominions and the Colonies are anxious to co-operate with us. I believe that if we pursue a policy such as I have adumbrated fearlessly, firmly, boldly, we shall find, within the Empire there will be as great a strength in peace as ever there was during the War. By the development of the resources of the Empire we shall once again save ourselves by our exertions, and save other nations by our example.

Mr. SHORT: I gather from the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that the Government on this occasion and on this subject intends to do something very great and bold. The boldness of their policy is to be supported by the pockets of the taxpayer of the country. I am wondering to what extent and to what limit the pockets of the taxpayer are to be taxed in this further venture which the right hon. Gentleman has submitted. As far as the purposes and object of the Resolution are concerned, we on this side of the House can offer general support. We are interested no less than hon. Gentlemen opposite in the progress and development of the British Empire. We are concerned with the growth and the development of trade. We are concerned with the provision of employment at remunerative rates and under sound and proper conditions for the people of our country. While I can offer general support to the Amendment, it will not prevent me from calling attention to one
or two aspects of the matter which indicate the difficulty of considering the question of Imperial unity and Empire trade, without relation to our foreign trade or neutral trade.
The Amendment makes reference in the first place to the state of trade in Europe and the Empire. It then refers to the urgent necessity of the re-establishment of trade relations with European countries, and, thirdly, it urges the Government to take immediate steps to secure an extension of trade with the Overseas portions of the Empire. No one who observes the economic breakdown of Europe, and recognises the evil consequences and the effect of the breakdown on our people, can ignore the necessity and the desirability of this House devoting its attention to a consideration of what means might reasonably be employed to further the trade interests of our country, and, indeed, of the world. It is not competent for me to discuss the causes of the economic breakdown of Europe, or to foreshadow a possible solution, hut I am of opinion that the sooner we can find a solution for the outstanding differences that exist between the nations of the world the sooner we can supersede hostility and conflict by goodwill, the sooner shall we obtain those conditions which will lead to a. restoration of the economic life of Europe.
It is interesting to note that foreign trade with this country is bound up, and seriously bound up, with the trade of our Dominions and the Colonies. They appear to me to be supplemental to one another and difficult to separate. My hon. Friend opposite (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) rightly urges the necessity of developing the resources of our country and of our Empire, and the Seconder of this Amendment made some reference to India. I fear that in approaching the consideration of this great subject of Empire trade we are inclined to think that the trade arises directly between ourselves and our Dominions or our Colonies, without any relation whatsoever to the trade that neutral or foreign countries are doing with our Colonies or our Dominions.
This is a very important fact. It is what I believe Mr. McKenna in a recent speech delivered to the shareholders of the London City and Midland Bank in the latter days of the month of January this year referred to as "triangular
trade." Mr. McKenna pointed out how dependent our trade with India was upon the trade of Germany with India. He stated that in 1913, India's exports to Germany were £27,000,000, and her imports from that country were only £7,000,000, showing that India had an excess of exports to Germany of £20,000,000, and the surplus she thus obtained provided her with the means of paying for British goods. I call attention to that aspect of the matter because if the trade of Germany with India has ceased, if it is being jeopardised because of the economic break down of German trade life and economic interests, that of itself seriously jeopardises the trade that India has hitherto done with ourselves. Therefore it is impossible in my judgment to simply view our trade relations with the Empire without regard to what is happening in connection with the trade of foreign and neutral countries with our Colonies and Dominions.
Mr. McKenna also pointed out that our exports during 1922 to Central and Eastern Europe fell by 62 per cent.; to other countries outside those by 30 per cent., and to British possessions by 29 per cent. It would appear to me, that the triangular trade in the illustration which I have quoted from Mr. McKenna's speech indicates the reason for the decline of 29 per cent. of our exports to British possessions. I would like to call attention to the imperative necessary that, whatever we may do in developing our internal resources within the Empire, we should try to secure a recovery of our foreign trade wherever it was done before. A census of production taken in 1907 indicates that the cotton trade to the extent of four-fifths, the machinery trade to the extent of three-fifths, and the woollen trade to the extent of one-half, were working for the foreign markets. That means that one worker out of every three was practically being employed probably for a whole lifetime upon the production of goods for foreign countries. Therefore it is imperative that we should realise and appreciate the importance, and, indeed, the value, of maintaining or recovering our foreign trade in the interests of the labouring population of this country.
I pass now to the second point, which refers to the re-establishment of trade
relations with European countries. Briefly, I should like to say that I welcome the words in the Amendment, and I trust that the Government will take note of them. I hope they will express a willingness and a readiness to immediately re-open full and complete diplomatic relations with Russia. I believe that is essential. I do not suggest that the reopening of trade with Russia would in itself solve our unemployed problem, but I cannot think the cutting off of 130,000,000 of people, whether directly or indirectly, by some act of ours can be of any mutual advantage either to them or to ourselves. I cannot believe either that because we dislike the form of government in Russia that that in itself is a justification for pursuing the present policy of failing to acknowledge or to extend to Russia full diplomatic relations.
In this connection I would point out that Germany some time ago extended these full diplomatic relationships to Russia, and it is noticeable that since that date there has been an increase, and a fairly large increase, in proportion to the trade she was doing with Russia in the trade between Germany and Russia. I cannot help thinking that an increase in the trade and commerce between the two countries has something to do with the giving of full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Government of Russia and her people. At any rate, I hope unless these words were inserted merely as a bit of window dressing, that the representative of the Government will not overlook their importance, and will seek at the earliest possible moment to put them into effect.
Now I come to the third and really the most important part of the Amendment, which deals with the extension of the trade between this country and the Dominions and the Colonies. From an economic point of view, I welcome such progress and such developments, although I would prefer that the bond of Empire and Imperial unity should be based upon foundations less shifty and less doubtful than purely commercial relationships. I believe that the manifestation of unity spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and which indicated itself during the period of the War, was largely the product of an appreciation of the fact that our political ideals and our love of liberty and freedom, and our great belief
in democratic institutions were recognised and held in common by those inside the British Empire, and I cannot believe that the permanency of this Empire can rest upon a purely cash basis, or upon the basis of a profit and loss account. Therefore I urge a broader and a bigger view of our relationship with our Dominions and Colonies than that of a pure extension of trade, or an extension upon the basis of trade and commerce.
I am afraid that behind this Amendment there is the idea and the belief that the Empire can of itself become self-supporting. I observe that the Mover of the Amendment quoted the words
 making the Empire independent of other countries.
That may he a very laudable aim and ambition, but I doubt if it could be realised, and if all the facts and conditions were with us to enable us to realise it, whether the realisation would be good for us or for our friends across the seas. Is it possible for an ideal of this character to be realised? Is it possible for the British Empire to become self-supporting, self-sustaining and independent of all other countries in the world? Judging from the evidence I have gathered, and from the slight study I have made of this matter, I am inclined to think that it will be many a long day before we reach the realisation of such an ideal, even if it were possible. I think that the resources of the Empire might reasonably be developed in the interests, not merely of ourselves, but I hope in the interests of the peoples of the world. I am inclined to take something more than a narrow parochial view of this problem. I would rather like to think in terms of internationalism. I would like to see the efforts of our Empire being directed to the promotion of the interests not merely of our own communities, but of all the communities of the world.
I have asked the question whether we can become self-supporting, and on this subject I have extracted a few figures for the year 1913. I have no particular reason for taking that year except that it is the latest normal year, and I am justified in quoting the figures for that period. I find, in connection with a number of articles, the following results. As regards butter, the imports from all foreign countries into
the United Kingdom for 1913 were of the value of £19,513,000, and the exports from our Empire abroad to all foreign countries, including the United Kingdom, in 1913, amounted to £382,000.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Does the hon. Member really mean that the value of the total exports of butter from all parts of the Empire in 1913, including Australian butter, was only £382,000? I think he must be wrong.

Mr. SHORT: I will leave my hon. Friend to show that I am wrong later, if he can. Similar results might be found in connection with meat, wheat and flour, raw cotton, and wood and timber. These figures demonstrate, to me, at any rate, the difficulty of satisfying from within the Empire all the needs and requirements of the people within the Empire, having regard to the large volume of imports of these articles that we get from foreign countries outside the Empire itself. It suggests to me that it would he a very long time indeed before the resources of the Empire could be developed to such an extent as to free us from dependence upon other countries outside the Empire.
Finally, I should like to say a word in connection with tariffs and preference. I do not propose to go into that matter very extensively. I do not want to make this Amendment what I should call a really controversial matter, because I am going to give it general support, but I believe, having regard to our trade interests with other countries outside the Empire, that it would be fatal to us if we sought to develop trade within the Empire by any system of tariffs or highly developed protective duties. I believe that what the world ought to aim at, and what we as a great country ought to aim at, is the encouragement of a free flow of trade and commerce between the peoples of the world. And I cannot help thinking that if we encourage the erection of the barriers referred to by the Mover of the Amendment—he indicated that they were growing higher and more numerous—and they are more numerous because the imposition of a tariff wall obviously invites retaliation and resistance from some other countries whose interests are affected—I trust that in the promotion of the ideals embodied in this Amendment, in attempting to secure a larger measure
of trade within the Empire, we shall not fail to notice the importance of our foreign trade relations and to realise the importance of escaping the dangers arising from tariff walls and from preference of one kind and another, but shall direct our aims to the creation, even in our commercial relations, of an atmosphere of peace, because I believe that upon the foundations of peace you can erect the monument of prosperity.

Captain WALLACE: In rising to address the House for the first time, I should like to claim that generous measure of indulgence which, I know, is never refused to anyone. The very interesting speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr Short), who promised this Amendment, general support, seemed to me to have an undercurrent running through it in which emphasis was laid upon the great importance of our trade with foreign countries as compared with our Empire trade. That is a point of view which we have frequently heard expressed from the Benches opposite, and, although I was totally ignorant of what the hon. Member was going to say this afternoon, I had anticipated that this point would probably be brought up. I think it is best illustrated by a quotation from a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) on the 30th November last, during the Debate on Unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman said:
 At best, by developing our trade with the white part of our population within the Empire, we cannot hope to do business with more than between 15 and 20 million people. You must set against that the wisdom of trying to do business, not with 15 or 20 million people, but with between 300 and 400 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1922; col. 947, Vol. 159.]
The question which rises in my mind is, is the actual number of one's customers the only criterion of the value of foreign trade? I would most respectfully submit to the House that there are at any rate two other considerations which are relevant. One of them is the amount of purchase per head, and the second, which I think is the more important of the two, is the method of payment, or, in other words, what they are going to send us in exchange. As regards the first consideration, the amount of purchase per head, this point has been very ably dealt with by my Noble and Gallant Friend
who moved this Amendment. Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat the figures. In 1922, the four Dominions averaged £7 per head in their purchases, while the four biggest European countries only averaged £1 17s. These figures speak for themselves. As regards the second point, the method of payment, which it is very essential to consider, I should like, if I may, to quote a few words from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who may be taken as being a very sound Free Trade authority on the question we arc discussing to-day. In this House, on the 19th October, 1921, he said:
 "After all, the things which Germany sends us‥‥ are things which we really do not want or which we can make ourselves. But the British Dominions send us things that we cannot make ourselves. things which are essential to us in the shape of food, material, or half-finished products." —[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 19th October, 1921: col. 119, Vol. 147.]
He went on to say that he saw no reason why we should not establish a healthy and progressive trade between the Dominions and ourselves, which would overtop altogether the European trade with this country. I think that on both those points we may be allowed to come to the conclusion that there is fair reason to hope that the restoration of Europe is not absolutely essential to the recovery of our foreign trade. Naturally, the chaotic conditions prevailing in Europe must have an adverse effect upon that trade, and in regard to that I am sure no one would venture to disagree with the last speaker in emphasising the necessity of doing more than merely trying to cement the bonds of Empire trade; but I do wish to submit to the House that Empire trade has a value quite disproportionate to the figures given in the Board of Trade Returns. If we wish to consider the real value of our trade with any particular country, we must get back to certain basic facts. The first is that the resources of this country in foodstuffs and raw materials are not enough to support, and certainly not enough to give full employment to, a population of 50,000,000 people. We are, therefore, absolutely dependent upon our export trade to secure the credits abroad which are vitally necessary to us for buying the food and raw materials we require to support and employ our population. The only way in which it is.
possible to secure those credits is by exports of coal and manufactured goods. Coal is the only raw material in this country, I believe, of which we have a sufficient surplus to be exportable. We must, therefore, consider, in measuring the value of our trade, its value from that particular point of view of securing credits abroad to buy food and raw materials.
6.0 P.M.
The spending of our money, or the using up of our credits, on the import of competitive manufactures, is, in my humble opinion, to a certain extent wasting it. Of course, it is quite obvious that the import of manufactured goods from any foreign country, even if they are competitive, has a certain value in establishing credits over here, which that foreign country must take out in buying from us; but if the imports of manufactured goods are strictly competitive, in the sense that if we did not import them we should make them ourselves, it does seem to me that the gain is really a very small one, representing only employment in transport and a certain amount of profit to the middleman. Without wishing to cast any reflection on the valuable figures supplied by the Board of Trade, I should like to give one very simple example of how they can mislead one. If we import £1,000,000 worth of manufactured goods and export £1,000,000 manufactured goods of an almost similar nature, that is recorded as £2.000,000 of foreign trade; but the actual gain to this country in employment is very little, with the exception of the employment given in moving the goods and of profit to the merchants and middlemen. If, on the other hand, we import £1,000,000 worth of raw material, and by our skill and work can turn it into £5,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, of which we export £1,000,000 to pay for the raw material and, say, another £1,000,000 to pay for the food which the people eat while they are making up the goods, that does really leave us with a net gain of £3,000,000 to the community, either in the material manufactured from the point of view of the consumer, or in wages, profits and from the point of view of the producer. If, therefore, I may be allowed to assume that the import of manufactured articles is of such comparatively small value to this particular argument, it does give us a basis upon which
we can get the net export value of our trade with any given country. If we deduct the imports of manufactured goods which we receive from that country from our exports of manufactured goods and coal to that country, the difference should give us the real net export value of cur trade, that is to say, the amount made available for securing those very necessary credits abroad. Taking, as the hon. Member for Wednesbury has done, the year 1913 as the last normal year the figures on this basis are extremely striking. In 1913 the net export value of our trade with Europe was £32,000,000; with other foreign countries outside Europe it was £98,000,000; the export value of our trade with the Empire in that same year was no less than £164,000,000. So that our Empire trade, from this, to my mind, very essential point of view of securing credits, was worth 25 per cent. more than our trade with the whole of the rest of the world. I think that is a consideration which, in estimating the value of our trade with the Empire, or considering the question of the advisability of spending money on developing it or spending money on developing our trade with foreign countries, should be borne in mind.
The conditions under which we are living at present as the result of the War, and as the result of our post-War financial policy, make it more than ever essential that we should try to deal with the, Empire rather than with foreign countries, and especially Europe. Before the War it was estimated that we held foreign investments which brought us in an annual revenue of something like £200,000,000. We now have £120,000,000 instead of £200,000,000. In our National Budget, therefore, we are £80,000,000 a year poorer from that point of view. Secondly, we have now to think of the amount of money we must export annually to pay our foreign debts, and that seems to be between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 a year, which must be added on to the £80,000,000 we have lost during the War. The third point which arises very acutely at present is the result of our financial policy of deflation since the War. It is not for me to discuss whether that was a good or a bad policy, but the fact remains that it has caused a very considerable appreciation in the value of the £ sterling as compared with the currency of practically the whole of Europe. This
difference in the value of currencies has the effect of putting a very heavy export tax on all the goods which we send out to European countries, and, similarly, of presenting those European countries with depreciated exchanges with a handsome and substantial import bonus on anything they like to send us. Empire trade is conducted mainly either in sterling or in dollars, and for that reason it is almost entirely free from those two serious disadvantages. We have also to compete with the restriction of our exports to foreign countries for two reasons. First of they are restricted because of the Economic weakness of these foreign countries, and, secondly, they are restricted in almost every case by the deliberate policy of those countries. It is a curious thing that under so many different circumstances there is such unanimity in the way with which almost every country except ourselves has seen fit since the War to establish a heavy and almost prohibitive tariff. In a maiden speech I should like to follow the last speaker in not wishing to make this Motion a controversial one. I would only say about this question of tariffs that it makes one almost think, whatever one's opinion on the subject was before, that there must be something in it, because everyone else has done it. For all these reasons, I submit that there never was a time when it was more essential that this country should conserve its national purchasing power and build up the largest export surplus it possibly can, because it is on that surplus that we can pay our debts, develop the Empire or invest our money in foreign countries. As I feel that that surplus can best be built up by devoting ourselves to trade within the Empire rather than trade with foreign countries, I would appeal to hon. Members of all shades of opinion to support the Motion.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman upon his maiden effort in our Debates. He has paid the House the compliment of carefully preparing his facts and figures he has stated them lucidly and moderately, and I am sure his intervention in our Debates in the future will always be welcomed. I
should like to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on the enthusiasm with which he introduced his subject. If the future reveals that one result of the War has been to turn the attention of our country to the possibilities of developing trade with our Dominions, I am sure we shall consider that one of the best results of the War. The hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Benches was very pessimistic and gloomy about the prospects of the Empire being self-supporting, and I am not surprised, because he was basing his conclusion upon the fact that the Dominions abroad had only exported £300,000 worth of goods to this and other countries.

Mr. SHORT: I should like to make a, correction. Those figures related to exports to foreign countries, not including the United Kingdom.

Dr. CHAPPLE: That is not as I understood the hon. Member, but I am very glad I have given him the opportunity of correcting me. The President of the Board of Trade said we were on the eve of great schemes. I should like to know exactly what he means by that. If he means by big schemes that we are to finance big undertakings in our Dominions and directly finance them, I think we ought all to utter a warning. We are not competent to keep in touch with big schemes abroad and to control them effectively. If on the other hand he means that this country is going to place credits at the disposal of Dominion Governments, and that those Governments will be responsible for schemes in their own country, I think we ought to welcome that. We may talk as we like about emigrating men from this country, but our whole efforts at emigration will be futile unless we also emigrate capital. You can flood any one of our Dominions to-day with men, and you will only lead to disaster, because those men cannot find work in those Dominions unless there is capital for the development of the natural resources of the Dominions which will necessarily bring about the employment of the men whom we emigrate. Therefore, it is essential that credit should be made available for these Dominions, and these Governments are quite competent to use that capital and control it and direct it effectively for development. purposes.[Interruption.] I shall be very glad if
the hon. and gallant Gentleman will make an interruption that is audible and intelligible, but it is neither.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was saying the argument that we should give everyone all round would be admirable for trade purposes, but unfortunately they would be our pounds.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not listening to me intelligently. Of course, I cannot blame him for that. I can just note the fact. The Noble Lord who introduced the Debate said it was time capital was made available for our Dominions and that investments by capitalists in this country should be directed to these Dominions. I think it is a great misfortune that so much Capital in the past has been invested in foreign countries. When I think of the amount of money which was invested in Mexico and lost, in Russia and lost, in Turkey and lost, in China and lost, and how little money has been invested in the Dominions and lost, I think it is about time that the Noble Lord and others on that side of the House realised that the best investments in the world are to be found under the Flag and that there is not only room but there is sufficient attraction to suit every taste. If one wants to invest in the tropics, the tropics are under the Flag, if in the frozen zone the frozen zone is under the Flag. There is hardly an industry and hardly a. natural resource anywhere in the world which cannot be found attractive under Flag. If we are going to direct our attention and the attention of capitalists to the Dominions, we want to show that in the Dominions there are prospects for capital and there are prospects for men. The advantages of investment in the Dominions are first of all that you have stable government—a very essential thing —you have people with the same ideas of commercial morality and honour as we have ourselves—also a very important thing—and we are not only dealing with our own kith and kin, but we are dealing with people whose methods of business we understand, and whose methods of business are as honest and honourable as our Own.
New features have arisen which make Empire investment and Empire develop-
ment much more simple and attractive. Take the question of transport alone. It is cheaper to convey mutton from Australia and New Zealand to London than to convey it from some parts of Scotland to London. It is cheaper to convey woollen goods from Liverpool to Bombay than it is from Bradford to Liverpool. It is cheaper to convey, agricultural machinery from Toronto to Melbourne than it is from Toronto to the Western Provinces of Canada. Shipping transport has become so cheap and so abundant that the Dominions have all been brought together and distance has practically been annihilated. Not only have you cheap freight and abundant accommodation of shipping, but you have safety. When one contrasts the dangers of going to the Antipodes 20 years ago with the safety now, one can see that the sea journey has become attractive. Take wireless alone. I have been in a ship half-way between the Cape of Good Hope and Australia when the engines stopped and we rolled in the storm almost to death. The danger in these days compared with the danger in those days is practically nil, for a wireless message now, wherever you are on the ocean, will bring assistance. The ships have become so large, they travel so economically—one captain will take a ship of 15 to 20 thousand tons to the Antipodes, the economy in working, the speed at which they travel, the safety with which they travel and with which they convey our goods and passengers, are such that practically we have brought the Empire into one organic whole.
I sometimes begin to dread emigration when I hear that we are simply developing schemes for the emigration of people who are only labourers without money. What we want to do also is to emigrate people who have money. Unless we send out a definite proportion of men with capital we shall get into a very grave and serious difficulty, because there is only a certain number of workmen without money that any one of these Dominions can absorb. With money, and even small amounts of money, all things are possible. May I give one or two instances from my own experience of the Dominions. I have travelled six times round the world. I know the Dominions well, and New Zealand best of all. May I give a few indications of how labour can be absorbed in New Zealand, and how capital can be
effectively, safely and properly invested, provided that the definite proportion of labour and capital, to which I have referred, be exported from this country. In the first place, we have to remember that New Zealand is 16,000 square miles larger than Great Britain, but it only has a population not much greater than Glasgow. The second thing that we have to remember about New Zealand as a field for investment is that its central degree of latitude in the north island corresponds with the South of Spain, so that you get sunshine all the year round, you get an adequate rainfall, and an enormous fertility of the soil. Therefore, people who go there are going to a country which is attractive in itself. In the last month of winter in New Zealand I have picked ripe oranges from the, trees in the open; I have been surrounded by passion fruit on the vine and with growing flowers and grass. That was in the north island of New Zealand in the last month of winter. I have received a letter which reached me by the last mail from a leading banker in New Zealand, who is a General Inspector for the Dominion, and I can confirm his letter by my own personal experience. This letter gees to show what can be done by people who emigrate from this country, and who take out a sufficient amount of capital in order to acquire land and develop it. He says in his letter, which is dated 10th February of this year:
 "Just now, large areas of undeveloped land can be obtained at from £2 to £3 an acre freehold. That land is capable with the judicial expenditure of £5 per acre thereon of being made into pasture land saleable for £25 an acre.
I know the area of land to which he refers. It is 50,000 acres of land, something like the Brighton Downs in contour. It is virgin land, that has never been touched, and is covered with light scrub and fern. When treated with Narau Island phosphate, from the German island of Nauru in the Pacific, which has been made available for New Zealand and is being sent to New Zealand in large quantities, that land, with an expenditure of 10s. an acre on it in phosphate, could be converted into land which would carry half a cow per acre for dairying purposes.
 New Zealand is exporting £20,000,000 worth of dairy produce annually,"—
Nearly £20 per head of men, women and children in New Zealand is being exported
this year in dairy produce alone, so that hon. Members can see the enormous fertility of the soil—
 and I am satisfied that there is room to export ten times as much in the near future if capital and good labour sufficient for the purpose are available. As you know, with our climate we shall always be able to turn out butter and cheese that can be surpassed by no other country in the world, and we shall become shortly the main dairy for the British Empire.
I give that as an illustration of the prospects existing in an overseas Dominion, which is only one of many, if capital and labour are available. Then you have a paternal Government in New Zealand, which watches the interests not only of the emigrants but also the interests of all who arc developing the country. In the first place they put the railways almost entirely at the disposal of the developers of the land. There, manurial lime is carried over 100 miles upon the railways for nothing. Any farmer can send a shilling telegram to the general manager of the railways, to say, for instance, that he requires 20 tons of lime at a certain station. Trucks are put at his disposal, and that lime is carried for nothing. The reason is that New Zealand looks upon its land as a national asset, and that the man working the land will be there for a short time only and will disappear. The Government looks upon the land as a national asset which must be preserved for the nation, and it says that if a man is permitted to exhaust the land it will soon he non-productive, the nation will suffer, the exports of the Dominion will suffer. Consequently, if the man is willing to scatter the lime about on his soil and to preserve the soil eternally for the nation, they say that they will provide him with railway facilities and carry the lime for nothing.
Not only do they do that, but they carry all agricultural products at nominal rates. A box of agricultural products, 3 feet long, 2 feet 6 inches wide and 18 inches deep, is carried anywhere over the New Zealand railways for sixpence, and the empty box is carried back for nothing, provided that it had conveyed agricultural products. When you have a paternal Government like that, you can advise your friends who are used to the land to emigrate to New Zealand, because the interests of those who produce—it is an agricultural and pastoral country—are
conserved by the Government. I could give a number of similar illustrations which would suffice to show that all the Dominions offer facilities in this way. In South Africa, agricultural products from the farm are carried at half freight rates. In Victoria and other Dominions it is the same. Consequently, when we are considering the development of the Empire and the emigration of our people to occupy these vast spaces, and when we are considering the necessity for capital, we must bear in mind that it is worth our while to concentrate our attention upon Empire development.
Let me say a few words about an island adjacent to New Zealand. I travelled in Fiji quite recently, and there I was amazed to discover in the little island of Suva land richer and more productive than any land I have ever seen in any part of the world. It is a chocolate soil of great depth, and turned over year after year, where sugar is produced, and grows mast luxuriantly. The growth is so luxurious as to be almost a danger to itself. There is an amazing climate, with an abundant rainfall; the most beautiful mountains and rivers I have ever seen in the world are to be found in that little island, which has only a population of 2,500 white people. There are 85,000 natives, many of whom arc available for labour, and there is a population of about 60,000 Indians. There you have large spaces of pastoral land, hill land for cattle, and with no tropical diseases. Tropical diseases are unknown in Fiji. Malaria and yellow fever are, unknown, and the whites who go there and who are bred there are as healthy as we are ourselves.
There are such wide open spaces and such wonderful attractions in our overseas Dominions and our Crown Colonies that the Government could concentrate its attention on nothing better than to develop the trade of the Empire and to emigrate people who are willing to go. There is no compulsion about it. The Labour party seem to think that when we are talking about emigration that we are seizing somebody in his happy home and taking him away and deporting him. I always feel impatient when I hear members of the Labour party talking like that. We are doing nothing of the sort.
We are simply going to a home where, perhaps, there is an idle son, and we are saying, "Has that boy anything to do? Has he any prospects?" If they say, "No, he has none," we say, "Would you like him to go to the Dominions—to Canada, South Africa, Australia, or New Zealand? If so, we will give him every facility for going there." What harm arc you doing to that boy; what sentiments in the mother's heart are you outraging? The mother is most anxious that he should have a chance. The letters that come every five weeks from our boys in the Dominions are a delight to their homes. You can do no greater benefit to the homes of this country than to make it easy for young men and young women to emigrate to our Dominions. The Empire is now so compact by facilities of transport, the rapidity of transport and the safety of transport that to-day we are one.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: My hon. Friend who has just sat down is as competent as anyone in this House to venture an opinion on any matters relating to Empire development. I know that he has travelled extensively. I have had many talks with him over his extensive travels, not only in New Zealand, but in other parts of the Empire. In passing, I would say that it would give great joy to many of us if the Overseas Committee had gentlemen sitting on it of the experience of my hon. Friend. To hear him speak on this subject is a matter of great interest to me. It was also a matter of pleasure to listen to the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey (Viscount Ednam), supported by such a great Empire worker as the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) who, as we all know, has done great work in originating the Imperial Press Conference, and working in other ways connected with the development of the British Empire. I also listened with great joy to the hon. Member who now sits for my old constituency of Wednesbury (Mr. Short), because I know that he is becoming quite an Empire builder himself. He raises no objection to Empire development schemes. What he is concerned about is that while we are doing this work we shall not neglect the possibilities of trade in other directions and the development of our own interests and industries. I am perfectly certain that if he went to Wednesbury to-morrow
and said that he was all out for an Empire policy coupled with protection, they would give him another 10,000 votes, and more than double his majority at the next Election. Wednesbury is a typical working man's constituency, if ever there was one in this country.
In the last issue of the "Star" there was something in the nature of an unfair attack in connection with those who interest themselves in emigration and migration, and it was suggested that there was ample scope for our energies in the development of this country with- out considering the possibilities oversea. Those who arc interested, in this matter attach the greatest importance to doing good work in this country, and to the development of our trade with other parts of the world as well as the Empire. I, among others, have taken a keen interest in the expansion of British trade interests in South America and other places, and shall continue to do so, but I put first the development of all our resources within the British Empire. Then, again, we have heard it said that there is any amount of land in this country for development. I agree that we should have as much development as possible, but it would be absurd to assume that there is enough land in this country to satisfy all the requirements which are necessary for those who want to go on the land.

Mr. WHEATLEY: It is going out of cultivation.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Possibly, but if you have Imperial Preference there will be a much larger amount under cultivation at once. The sooner hon. Members opposite go to the country and forget the words "tariff reform" and "free trade" and say that they are out to protect the interests of the country and to protect the workers themselves the sooner they will come on the Treasury Bench. The Debate, so far, has been most interesting and instructive. I was particularly interested by the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that we need have no delay whatever in going ahead with matters affecting the development of our Crown Colonies. Some of us wore rather frightened that this might be postponed until the Imperial Conference in October, and I was pleased to hear that there need be no delay on
that score. I interrupted to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to go ahead at once without further delay, coming if necessary to this House for a Vote for the necessary funds with which to carry out any approved scheme. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) seemed rather opposed to the granting of credits, but if any scheme is sound then credits, whether by a nation, a private firm, or a hank, have never impaired the credit of those who gave them. They rather strengthen credit, even if it is given by a, private firm which is venturing a credit beyond its capital, because people realise that it has the common sense to recognise a good investment. This is the answer to many criticisms which will he levelled in relation to guarantees.
The intention of this Government is to grant facilities by the use of the credit which the Government has in obtaining funds for general Empire development, much ahead of the resources of the country or the Crown Colony in question. The Crown Colony cannot bear in its annual budget, the standing charges which would have to be included, if it had to raise money, as has been done in the past, but by grants-in-aid it can develop without this burden on its budget. Some people have the idea that we have got to pay interest on this money. That is not the case. If it is so arranged that the interest and redemption can be provided for on the capital sum it is perfectly good finance for the first five or six years, until the country has been so developed that it is producing revenue. If, on the other hand, you were to endeavour to develop a barren country, ultimately it would hit everybody, but that is not the intention. There are vast tracts of country in our Empire, as rich as any other places in the world, which, when properly developed, will yield handsome returns to those who participate in the development.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Why does not private enterprise do it?

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Private enterprise is going on continuously. It is responsible for developing the British Empire.

Mr. WHEATLEY: It is coming here begging for money.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: No, only credit. I put to the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the question of families whose heads wished to go overseas but cannot do so, though they could make a home there, because they have no way of maintaining their family until they can make arrangements for the families to join them, and my hon. and gallant Friend in his reply said that the question was a difficult one, but that he was giving this particular aspect his special consideration. I beg him to try to push the matter through as quickly as possible, not only because of a particular case which I have in mind, but also for the many other families who are anxious to go if provision can be made. These men will have good wages and conditions if they can only get away. Is there not some way in which the dole, which is given at present, can be utilised so as to keep the wife and family going while the father is away? There was something in a speech by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) to which reference has been made which would lead the man in the street to suppose that we were only trying to develop trade with 20,000,000 of our own people in the British Empire as against the hundreds of millions of people in Europe. I think it is only right to check this wrong impression by giving a general statement as to the development in 1913 in the British Empire.
The area of the Empire in round figures then was 12,000,000 square miles, its population was 439,000,000 and it, had only 134,000 miles of railways. The United States contained 3,000,000 square miles and had a population of 97,000,000 with 251,000 miles of railway. It is obvious to anyone who examines those figures that there are enormous possibilities awaiting development by the hand of man, and by this country in particular, in connection with our Dominions. We have had a series of answers to questions of my own, by different Members of the Government, and statement after statement in this House, and also to those who have spoken to Members of the Government, to the effect that they were as keen as any of us in trying to push ahead matters in relation to Empire development and migration, but there seems to be some hitch. The First Lord of the Admiralty has been one of the
leaders in this school of thought for years, as has been my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I would ask him and every Member on the Front Bench, as progress in this great work seems to be hung up if the cause is the Treasury.
If it be the Treasury, I beg the Government to let this House know, and I am sure that the House will give the Treasury a shock if it does not come to its senses and grant facilities. If the Government are as united in their desire to develop the Empire as they claim to be, are they strong enough to force the Treasury to grant the money that is wanted? If not, I want them to go on strike against the Treasury. I want to see the whole Cabinet get the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Parliamentary Secretary together in a room outside the Cabinet room, and to tell them individually and collectively what they think about the matter. If they do that they will get the money. Seriously, it is in the minds of many hon. Members that the delay is mainly due to indecision, or to the refusal to grant the necessary financial facilities to carry out one scheme or another. As far as I am personally concerned, I shall continue to get my families away from this country. They are going one by one. I am getting them out quietly, with the assistance of the various Dominion authorities, and I shall continue to help those who want to go. But we ought to have in this matter co-operation between all Members of the House, and I appeal to hon. Members opposite to join with us in pressing the Government to move quickly in this matter.

Mr. BARKER: This subject has been a hardy annual for many years. It seems to represent the Utopia of the Imperialist, who, when he gets on the subject of Empire emigration, exclaims, "Eureka! I have found it." It seems to be his staple asset at every election. I am in a difficulty in the matter. How is it that the Government does not deal with the question? There is no opposition. I have not heard a solitary speech to-day in opposition to this Motion. I am at a loss to understand how it is, if this be the panacea for all the ills of the Empire, that the Government does not apply it as a remedy for unemployment. Reference has been made by an hon. Member
to South Africa. He said that people were longing to go there. He did not say that there was anyone in South Africa longing to receive them when they got there. Only last week there was an article in the "Times" on South Africa. It was stated in the article that unemployment was terrible in South Africa. Yet South Africa is an empty Dominion, as far as white men are concerned.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I did not say that people were dying to go to South Africa. I simply quoted South Africa as an illustration of what was done for agriculture and the people there making it attractive to emigrants. I also said that capital was necessary in all those countries as well as men, and that if men went without capital there would necessarily be unemployment.

Mr. BARKER: In South Africa there is plenty of territory. The article in the "Times" stated that General Smuts's great trouble was to find money to assist emigration from South Africa to Australia. That information is not from a Bolshevik source; I am not quoting from a Communist paper, but from the "Times." What is the position in Australia? I will take as a source of information the "Labour Gazette," which is familiar to every Member of this House. It states that there have been 10 per cent. unemployed in Australia in the last 18 months. These facts make me feel that there is something hollow and unsubstantial in this Resolution. The poor attendance in the House during the Debate shows that it is nothing but a pious Resolution. I regard it as an innocuous Resolution, except that it diverts the attention of the House from the question of developing the resources of this country. We are told frequently that these islands are over-populated. There was the same complaint in 1823; they were saying then that these islands were overpopulated. To-day there is far more than double the population that there was in 1823. In 2023 there will probably be some 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 living in the United Kingdom. Area has really no relationship to population or to unemployment. The great sources of production have been so multiplied by scientific application that they have completely put out of court the narrow view that population depends entirely on area.
There is a great deal of unreality and sham in this Debate. It is all right for hon. Members to speak about the Empire and the flag. We have been annexing territory to the Empire for a century, and to-day we dominate nearly one-third of the globe. Yet we have over a million unemployed in this country. That shows that the Empire and unemployment have no relation whatever to each other. We know, too, that the Dominions will not allow our men to enter because unemployment is rife in the Dominions. If there were any serious emigration from this country the capitalists of this country would very soon be up in arms to stop it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] I am absolutely certain that if there were a scarcity of labour in this country steps would be taken, surreptitiously if not openly, to discourage emigration from this country. We must get down to the real facts of the situation; we must develop the resources of these islands. When we mention the land question we are treated with derision. But there is not the slightest doubt that the land question is at the root of unemployment in this country. We have land going out of cultivation, and our agricultural people are unable to live. Yet we talk about emigration to the Dominions. Why cannot our agricultural labourers live in this country? Because we have the most obsolete land system in the world. It is a system which compels the land to yield three increments. It is very doubtful whether it can yield two increments. Our agricultural labourers to-day are the slaves of the country.
If the Government believe in this principle of emigration, if hon. Members, instead of getting on platforms at by-elections and general elections with a great Union Jack behind the chairman, and when tackled with unemployment and its evils referring to the Union Jack and to the Empire—if they believe in what they say, why do they not apply their principle? There is no one stopping them. The answer is that they know in their own hearts that emigration is not a remedy; they know very well that the opposition with which they would meet in the Dominions would bring to naught any scheme that they devised. There is the question of trade with the Dominions. The Dominions will not allow our goods to enter without payment of a big tariff. We have a sham preference. What is the
use of saying that our goods can go in at 33 per cent. less than any other goods if the tariff wall is high enough to keep out our goods and everybody else's goods. It is a sham preference that we have. The Empire is more an Empire in name than in reality.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Has my hon. Friend any relatives, friends or connections in any part of the Empire?

7.0 P.M.

Mr. BARKER: I do not want to intrude my own personality into this Debate. I spent 17 years abroad; I have lived in South Africa and travelled Canada from one end to the other. I have lived in the Straits Settlements, and I think I know something about. this question. I was surprised when I heard the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) say that the Members of the House of Commons ought to get into a big ship, and sail round the Empire. I suppose he was assuming that no one in the House knew anything about the Empire except himself. I believe that most of hon. Members have been over the British Empire. That does not alter the facts which I have stated that you have unemployment in every part of the British Empire almost, almost without exception. This ideal of emigrating our people from this country to the Dominions seems to me very hollow and very unreal, and the House would be better occupied if it got down to developing the resources of this country instead of keeping on with this red herring.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: I hardly think I should have intervened had it not been that the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) said that the Empire was more of a sham than a reality. Whatever may be the opinion of the Labour Benches, that is not the opinion of my Friends around me. I also, like my hon. Friend, have had the privilege of travelling in the Empire; in fact, I emigrated in the early days of my youth.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: And you came back!

Mr. SPENCER: Yes, I came back. I have always regretted that when I had got married, I did not go out again, because the delight of life in those parts of the Empire is much greater than in
England, mainly owing to the climate. I should like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple) as to the paternal Government in New Zealand. The Government in New Zealand undoubtedly does develop the land of New Zealand, looking upon it as a national asset. That Government, however, when it has developed the land, by cheap railway freights, free land, and such thing's, takes the value which it. makes itself by the taxation of land values. I lived in Australia when Australian unemployment was far worse than it, is in England to-day. I have been in New Zealand when people were fleeing away from New Zealand at a greater rate than that at which they are trying to flee from England to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Britain," and "That is your Empire! "] I am an Empire man, because I see that these outlying parts of the Empire have developed their prosperity by realising that it is on the land question that their prosperity depends.
I am rather puzzled by the two points of view which my hon. Friends on the two sides of the House seem to take. On the Conservative side we have people expressing the greatest distrust of Government interference with trade—I think they are right—yet we have them advocating all sorts of expenditure on Empire development. We have our Socialist friends, who believe that the State can do everything better than private enterprise and we have them objecting to this scheme. I am inclined to suspect that Socialism and Toryism are very near akin. They both believe in Government interference. Protection for trade is the Tory panacea, and interference with trade is the Socialist panacea. I suspect them both, equally. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General is not here, to take part in the Debate, because I think only 36 hours ago he said the wisest thing about trade that has been said by any Member of the Conservative party this Session. He said:
 Traders want protection against Governments,
and I hope that our hon. and right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will remember this. I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Abertillery, who stated that 100 years ago this country was said to have been overpopulated. Everyone in this House will agree that there never was a man
with a greater love for the poor and the under-dog than Charles Kingsley. In one of his books, written, I suppose, about 59 or 60 years ago, you will find the statement—I am only quoting from memory, and probably I am not quoting correctly —that if only the money that had been wasted on the hapless Preston weavers' strike had been used to emigrate them from this country how much better it would have been. Ever since then, until 1896, at any rate, the condition of the overpopulated working men in this country was continuously improving, although the population was increasing very rapidly at that time.

Mr. JAMES STEWART: What about subsequently to 1896?

Mr. SPENCER: Subsequently to 1896 the condition of the working classes has not been improving. It would not be in Order to discuss that at length, but since 1896—it may be a coincidence, or something to do with it—we have had a great extension of the sloppy, semi-Socialistic measures so advocated from the Labour Benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Free trade."] Yes, we have had free trade. It would take too long to discuss the whole effect of the Boer War, and other things like the rise in prices, but we know that after Charles Kingsley spoke the condition of the poor did improve, although the population was very rapidly increasing.
There have been two points of view put forward from the Benches opposite. One is the development by Empire means of our Crown Colonies. That may be, and probably is extremely praiseworthy and good, but it will not relieve the problem of unemployment in this country. So far as emigration is concerned, we cannot emigrate our own white folk to tropical countries, and I take it we do not propose to do so. The other point is the relief of unemployment by emigration. That is an extremely costly thing. I have helped to develop, farming land in Australia, with my own hands—if I may say so, in a very humble way. I have been out with a survey party, which was surveying forests, such as we know nothing about here—I did the cooking, as a matter of fact. My point is that the cost in labour of making that land fit for production was something prodigious. On the land I am now thinking of, a farm was
actually hewn out of the virgin forest. It was ploughed and sown, and is now producing butter for the English market. Is there anything so absurd as to tell us that that land can compete with our own land in this country to-day? As I come every week from my home in the North, I see what, to my mind, is the saddest industrial sight in this country. I see thousands and thousands of acres of grass land. It is incredible that in little Denmark alone, since the War, they have increased the number of pigs by a total greater than the whole number, of pigs in this country.

Mr. STEWART: Under "sloppy semi-Socialistic conditions"!

Mr. SPENCER: No. Under the most virile, individualistic system of farming. If my hon. Friend will allow me to say this, it is that the Denmark farmer keeps all he makes. That is not Socialism, if I know anything about Socialism. The Denmark farmer is the occupying owner, with the full ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. That is not Socialism, if I know anything about Socialism. More than that, the Denmark farmer scoops all the profits of the middlemen, from buying his fertilisers wholesale in South America to selling his butter to the Manchester or Bradford shopkeeper. He has it all. I will say to the Treasury Bench—if I may, as a young Member, but as a very old student of these affairs that in that direction their eyes should be turned. The development of our own part of the Empire is the service they should render to the country, in the old, catch-phrase, by putting the landless man on to the manless land. We have this manless land in our own country, and in that method of developing the Empire I trust our Government will meet us.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Debate, up till recently, has been indeed an imperialistic night out. We have had the Empire Development Syndicate in full cry and, as the last speaker so aptly pointed out, the people who have been crying most loudly have been the Conservatives, crying for State aid. I think the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Spencer) did not observe the crucial difference between the demand for State aid on that, side of the, House and the demand for State aid on this side. There
is this difference—a profound difference—between the two. In the case of hon. Members opposite, we have heard demands for State aid which were interested in character, whereas the demands for State aid that are sometimes heard from this side of the House are not motived by self-interest in any way whatever. We have had the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths), whose name is associated, more than anybody else's, with the Empire. We have had from him the most earnest and moving appeals to the Under-Secretaries on the Government Bench, begging them even to go on strike to force the hands of the wicked Treasury; to force the Treasury to lend money to the various Crown Colonies throughout the Empire in order to develop the Empire. Yes, but was that the only question involved? After all, we know that the lion and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth is connected with perhaps the biggest firm of contractors in the British Empire. Naturally, when the British Treasury comes forward and lends money to the Gold Coast Colony, or to Kenya Colony, or, possibly, to the Sudan—they have done all, more or less, some with more guarantee than others—when they come forward with these loans, the people who are going to benefit first are the people who are going to contract to do the jobs. So I think we may look with a certain amount of suspicion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]. It is a perfectly justifiable statement. It is a perfectly natural thing. People who are interested in the expenditure of public money, whether landlords or contractors, are, perfectly rightly, subject to criticism —not to any criticism of their private motives—because they naturally look upon the expenditure of public money as something that will help them in their particular trade or interest.
We have heard claims from the coal trade for assistance. We have had over whelming claims from agriculture for assistance, and now we naturally have claims from those who wish to take part in the development of the Empire. That is one thing. They may think their claims justified or not, but it is not fair to compare demands of that sort with demands made from this side of the House for assistance from the State in the develop-
ment of industry, which are not made in any particular interest, but in the interest of the community as a whole. Unfortunately we have to-day a regular orgy of demands for Empire migration. That is where we on this side of the House join issue with hon. Members opposite. We do not believe you can solve the unemployment problem by emigrating people from this country to any other country on earth. We think the solution of the unemployment problem lies in England, and speech after speech from these benches have shown that we believe, that if you want to spend money on solving the unemployment problem by giving people jobs you can find opportunities for doing so in this country without spending more money either in the Sudan or in Kenya or Nigeria or elsewhere. If you can get the people back to the land in this country it will provide opportunities and that, it seems to me, is what this House should be debating and not the possibility of emigrating to the other end of the world people who would prefer to stop in this country.
This Debate was to deal not so much with Empire migration as with Empire trade. If you are going to develop Empire trade, you must see that the relations between the various parts of the Empire and ourselves are good and not bad. I am sorry the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary for India has just left the House. The dependency for which his Department is responsible is, I suppose, our biggest customer. Yet our relations with the people of India are allowed to grow worse and worse. We do not realise that as those relations grow worse and worse so, inevitably, British trade suffers. It may not be very obvious, but I have no doubt whatever that the whole Gandhi movement, the boycott of European wares and so forth, has enormously affected Manchester's trade with India. That trade would undoubtedly he far bigger to-day if it were not for that ill-feeling in India. If we arc going to develop inter-Empire trade, lei us lay the foundations of that trade fairly and squarely by securing the best possible relations with the peoples with whom we propose to trade. We should do far more for inter-Empire trade by genuinely co-operating with the Indian people in the establishment of self-government in that great Dependency than by advancing
money, guaranteeing loans and guaranteeing credits to the various dependencies, Crown Colonies and Dominions. That method is open to the Government at once. Will they take that line? It will cost us nothing the Treasury will not be called upon, and the taxpayers of this country will not be asked to contribute £3,000,000 a year. All we are asking is that, India should be given a chance of developing, and that the relations between Indian people and the British people should be allowed to develop on friendly lines, instead of, as at present, allowing those peoples to be driven permanently asunder by a futile policy of repression in India. What applies to India unfortunately applies to other parts of the world as well, and to our trade, particularly with the Levant. There, too, the policy of the Government has created bad trade, and our people are unemployed in increasing numbers owing to the policy of His Majesty's Government. Trade depends upon friendship, and just as our trade is suffering in India and the Levant, so it is suffering in Europe to-day as a result, not so much of our hostility to Europe, as of the hostilities which arc tearing Europe to pieces. Trade depends not upon spending public money abroad when that public money might be spent in this country, but upon breaking down the artificial barriers of hatred between peoples, and thereby enabling peoples to exchange on the best possible terms, in a friendly mariner, and to the profit of all parties.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I understand it is desired to raise another question before we get on to the Votes, anti I hope the House will allow this discussion to terminate. I have very little to add to what the President of the Board of Trade said in reply to the first two or three speeches, but I wish to correct some of the ideas which have been put before the House in subsequent speeches. No Member of the Government is suggesting that we have any panacea. I profoundly distrust all panaceas, including that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. His panacea is the taxation of land values which is apparently going to make the land of England and the climate of England more productive than those of the Valley of the Nile. We are going to
have a most marvellously contented and prosperous agricultural community, according to others, not by means of the panacea of the taxation of land values, but by developing the deer forests of Scotland; by that means, we were told, we are going to have valleys of corn growing and wine and oil flowing in this very trying climate. Panaceas of all kinds, however, are to be distrusted.
I think that hon. Members opposite have got the idea that His Majesty's Government regard the Empire Settlement Act and Empire development proposals generally as a solution of our unemployment problem here. Nothing of the kind. We never pretended that was the case. The Empire Settlement Act arose out of the last Imperial Conference when Australia and the other Dominions said to us, "We want more population to develop our undeveloped lands. If your people are willing to go as their forefathers did, will the two Governments come together and see that they go out under the best possible conditions?" It arose out of the desire to ensure that those who wished to do what the British race have done all over the world, in the United States of America as well as in the Empire, namely, go out as pioneers, should do so under the most humane conditions and with the best possible chances of success. That was the Government's policy, and that is why we have the Empire Settlement Act.
The object of this Debate, however, as I take it, was to ascertain what the Government proposed to do more particularly in the development of Empire trade and Empire resources. I would point out first that the Imperial Economic Conference is summoned primarly to discuss how far communications can be improved and how far various forms of assistance can be given, through Trade Commissioners and the like, to trade with the Dominions. Anyone of the Dominions or the British Government is entitled to bring up at that Conference anything affecting economic relations within the Empire. With regard to the Crown Colonies, the President of the Board of Trade has told the House that, though the development of the Crown Colonies in the interests of the Empire will be considered by that Conference, the Colonial Office do not propose to wait until the Conference, but are going to make an effort to accelerate, if possible, the de-
velopment of our trust in Africa and elsewhere. Probably the most striking book recently published on our Crown Colonies is that by Sir Frederick Lugard, entitled, "The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa." That is the point—we have a dual mandate. The first duty we have in a country like Nigeria is to give the Nigerian native a chance to advance in the scale of civilisation, in moral and material prosperity, and the second duty we have is to make available to the whole civilised world those tropical raw materials on which people in temperate climes all round the globe depend so largely for their comfort under modern civilisation. These two duties are laid upon us. I quite agree that education and all that sort of thing has got to go pari passu. We cannot sit down and worship the god of economics alone. Our task is a moral and political task as well as an economic task, but we have great economic duties. I believe there are something like 4,000,000 square miles in Africa either in British Dominions, British Crown Colonies, or British Protectorates, or in some way within our responsibility. In that portion of this vast area directly administered by the Colonial Office there are at present 4,000 miles of railway. That is grossly inadequate to enable these populations to develop their consuming power, their producing power, and their trade, and it is absolutely essential, if we are to carry out our heritage and the trust imposed upon us, that we should, step by step, do what we can to open up a continent like Africa by means of better communications. The better the communications the cheaper the raw materials and all that is necessary for the interests of this country, and the whole civilised world benefits from cheaper raw materials.
Thus, the first duty, and, I would say, the main duty, we have in regard to the Crown Colonies, is to deal with the problem of transport and open up these countries. It so happens that for the last 20 years this has been a State enterprise. With the exception of Nyasaland, all the railways in tropical Africa, West, and East, are Government constructed and Government run, and the mere fact that it is a Socialistic enterprise makes is absolutely the duty of successive Colonial administrations to ensure that we do not sit down and do nothing, but
that we see that the railway problem, railway extensions, harbour improvements, and the like, in these Crown Colonies—for which we are responsible, whose Budget we control, whose Legislative Councils we control—that that is wisely, sanely, and progressively considered. If the Labour party came in they would have the same task, and what we propose to do, in the interests of the world and of the Empire as a whole, is to consider how far we can assist and accelerate the development of these Crown Colonies.
We are, it is true, not going to be content with the progress of State enterprise in opening up these countries, but we are going to set up a Committee to, see how far we can bring in private enterprise as well. I think a body like the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation—bodies of that kind—would be of immense value in doing the subordinate work, but I am confident that for some time to come, at any rate, the main monopoly articles of a country like Nigeria must be at any rate controlled by the Government. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State proposes at an early date to set up a competent Committee to explore how far, in the building possibly of spur lines, it may be possible to interest private enterprise for the development of some of those raw materials of which the Empire is most in need, such as flax, cotton, and the like. The world is greatly in need of certain raw materials, and they can be grown and produced in the British Empire. I quite agree with the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. H. Spencer) that, when it comes to trade, the trader is best left to do the trading, and that the State cannot go into the actual work of trading, but the State, in addition to providing these transport services, has a very important duty to perform in connection with scientific research and scientific education.
The Crown Colonies have lacked our help in this matter all too much in the past, but we are making a beginning. In the West Indies, Trinidad has opened an agricultural college this year, which we hope will be an agricultural training centre for the whole tropical agriculture of the Empire, as well as of the West Indies, because research work in connection with almost every tropical product can be done at that college in Trinidad.
All that sort of work can be done. More ought to be done, and can be done, in West Africa and in Egypt. On all this sort of thing there is a tremendous scope of work to be done for Empire development, and I ask the House to set aside partisanship, not to have the sort of speech we listened to from the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker), who said that the Empire is a sham and not a reality.

Mr. BARKER: I said that this Debate was a sham.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am in the recollection of the House. I took the hon. Member's words down, and he said the Empire was a sham and not a reality. Well, we want to make it a reality.

Mr. J. STEWART: Do you accept his explanation?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I said I am in the recollection of the House, and that the hon. Member definitely said that the Empire was a sham.

Mr. STEWART: Having corrected it, do you accept his explanation?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. Member withdraws, I accept it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I said I am in the recollection of the House as to what he said. It is absolutely essential, if we are to be free from a charge of that kind, that we should do our duty by the Empire that we, should do our duty by these Crown Colonies, and that when the Dominions seek our co-operation, whether financially, whether in the development of their territory, we should not always give them the answer that we are only concerned with Great Britain, that we are only concerned with our interests inside our island. We are not. We are, as a people, for good or ill, inheritors of a great destiny, which has taken our people into every continent in the world, into every climate in the world, and we cannot turn round now and say, "We are not going to care twopience what happens to you, what happens to those responsible; we are only going to consider what is in this country; we are only going to spend money on the development of our little island." If that is going to be the creed, if that is going to be the outlook, then we have every right to perish as a nation, and I do believe that no section of the House,
except one small and narrow section of the party opposite, and by no means all that party, stands for anything but the carrying out of our sane, sober, Imperial duty, coupled with Imperial development.

Mr. ADAMS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down desired, in his opening remarks, to make it clear that in this Amendment the Government had no remedy for the solution of the problem of unemployment. There is no Member on this side of the House who would have charged the Government with having any solution of that problem. To solve the unemployment problem would require the incorporation of ideas. The President of the Board of Trade, in a long and somewhat interesting, though perhaps rather flippant, address to the House this afternoon, laid a good deal of stress upon the fact that European trade, as compared with 1914, had materially declined, whilst there had been a relative increase in our trade with our Colonial and Overseas possessions. I should have imagined that that situation would have been a source of regret to members of the Treasury Bench, for surely the unsettlement of Europe is more the work of the late Government, of which those Members are the lineal descendants and in many cases the actual participants, in that tragedy. It is a mournful commentary on the ideas which animate the Government that a scheme of this sort should require the argument that Europe will be many years unsettled and that therefore we must rely upon the relatively small trade with our Colonial and overseas possessions.
We, on this side of the House, are convinced that, while it is desirable that there should be the normal development of the Empire, the function of the Government is to turn their attention to home affairs first. If there is to ho an expenditure of three or four millions in credits, then this expenditure can be utilised at home in a more efficient manner, and we say, in addition, that the difficulties under which we are labouring to-day are difficulties which are capable of removal. The land monopoly has been alluded to in this discussion. A land monopoly unquestionably exists. I travelled from the North with a farmer this week who is meeting in conference this afternoon with the Minister of Agriculture upon the recent Agricultural Report, and I asked him a
question on land monopoly. He said, "Unquestionably, when I have effected improvements in my farm, or if I am, producing a greater proportion of crops to the acre than I did, say, seven or eight years ago, the landlord proposes to increase my rent. The result of that," he said, "is that when the agent comes to me and asks what I think that stack of hay contains, I am bound to be deceptive, for otherwise I should have my rent forced up." If that be the attitude of the land monopolist to a good tenant, we can imagine what occurs in other parts of the country where conditions are worse. Land monopoly, we assert, is capable of legislative removal.
There is another monopoly, the greatest monopoly, in my opinion, the greatest cause of unemployment, in this country, and that is the railway monopoly. When Parliament took from the Board of Trade the power which it possessed for controlling railway rates and fares, and placed it in the hands of that nominated and non-elected, absolute body, the Railway Rates Advisory Committee, they committed the greatest act of treachery to the traders and to the travelling public of this country. Throughout Britain there is no section of the commercial community that will deny that one of the greatest stumbling blocks to the expansion of home trade are the railway rates, which are of the most oppressive character. It is cheaper to import from the farthest parts of the Continent, with so much rail and sea service, goods for consumption in this country than it is to send, say, goods from the West of Scotland to Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It is more costly to send a ton of goods from Newcastle to Manchester than it is to carry them from New Orleans, 3,500 miles overseas. Those who know the statistics in regard to the small industries in our country, such as paper making and kindred trades, where it is necessary for works situated inland to utilise a good deal of rail traffic, will advise you that many of these mills, with the power which the railway companies now possess, have closed, and that others are engaged in most restricted services, and until rail rates are reduced to a reasonable figure it is impossible for our home trade to develop as it was in pre-War days. The railway monopoly must sooner
or later be dealt with by this House, and the powers which the Board of Trade possessed before the passing—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I must remind the hon. Member that the question under discussion is the co-operation of this country with the Dominions in Empire development, and not that of railways in England.

Mr. ADAMS: I was desirous of indicating in what way the heart of the Empire could be more adequately developed than it is at the present time. While hon. and right hon. Members are advocating that our industrial workers should be emigrated, I believe that with adequate development here that would be entirely unnecessary. Our export trade, it is true, is in ruins, and will continue to be so, so long as we allow the various monopolies to continue in our midst. We are advised that credits for our Overseas Dominions or Crown Colonies are necessary for Empire development. Private enterprise, we are continually advised, here is the secret of the success of the world as at present conducted. Why, then, should it be necessary to call upon the taxpayers of this country to supplement private enterprise in different parts of the world? Surely if these are competent, as we are repeatedly told, it ought not to be the business of the Government to call upon the taxpayers in this way. The trouble is that we are governed to-day by a body of pessimists. They are obsessed—and I think it is true to say that without being offensive—with the idea that this country would be better off if it were to be trading practically exclusively with our Overseas possessions. They do not possess the large view, which sees that the customer that the Britisher requires is anyone, no matter what his race or colour may be, so long as he is prepared to take our goods and supply us with goods in exchange. When the Prime Minister lays it down that his conviction is that, even if Germany could be once more restored, that would not be of benefit to the British Empire, because that country was more of a competitor than a client in pre-War days, that gives us the key to the narrow obsession which possesses the Treasury Bench. We on these benches are in favour of the normal development of the Empire, but we say that the heart of the Empire requires the attention of the Government first.

Main Question again proposed.

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKERfrom the remainder of this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. JAMES HOPE, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I desire to call the attention of the House to another subject, which is of very special interest to hon. Members sitting in all parts of the House, namely, the appointment of ex-service men to posts in His Majesty's Civil Service, and the question of the initial rate of salary for ex-temporary clerks holding permanent posts in the Civil Service. Since I put on the Paper the Motion which stands in my name, various announcements have been made by His Majesty's Government in this House as to the course which they propose to adopt in regard to this matter, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much the announcements which have been made have been welcomed in every part of the House as indicating a general desire on the part of the Treasury to consider particularly these hard cases. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday, 27th March, in answer to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for the Newbury Division of Berkshire. (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown), intimated the appointment of a Committee to report to what extent practical effect has been given to the Lytton Committee's recommendations in the various Government Departments. I understand that this Committee is to be limited in the scope of its reference, and will not be able to deal with the question of initial pay. In view, however, of the very deep interest which is being taken in this matter, I hope it may be possible for my right hon. Friend, in his reply, to indicate the exact scope of the remit which will be made to this particular Committee, and also whether it will be able to deal with the other recommendations of the Lytton Com-
mittee, including the question of substitution, and the question of the permanent appointments to the executive, administrative, and clerical classes. I understand and hope that it will be possible for the Committee to deal with all the other recommendations raised by the Lytton Committee's Report. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, if he can, indicate to us the personnel of that Committee, as we are anxious to know as soon as possible who are going to undertake this important work. On the 29th March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the further announcement of the appointment of a Committee
 to inquire into the present standard of remuneration and other conditions of employment of the various classes of State servants employed in the Civil Service as well as in the three fighting Services.
In reply to several supplementary questions put then, and questions also put in this House yesterday, he has indicated that this Committee will be competent to real with the question of the initial pay, and that he was prepared to consider what steps could be taken in order to put this question in the forefront of their consideration. Those who arc interested specially in this matter are very anxious indeed that there should be no unnecessary delay in dealing with this very urgent question, because it affects a number of men and women who at the present moment are suffering a severe pinch, and who are presently in the greatest straits by the low scale of pay which they receive. I welcome very much the action of the Government in proposing these Committees. It absolves me from the necessity of dealing in detail with the merits of the whole of this case, because I am glad to think, in appointing the Committee, the Government themselves recognise that not only is there a primâ facie case for inquiry, but that there are hardships to be redressed with which they are anxious themselves to deal. I think I may say, without exaggeration, that every individual who has been concerned with the consideration of this matter has admitted the hardships which have arisen. The late Financial Secretaries to the Treasury agreed and the present Financial Secretary, I am quite sure, also agrees that there is hero a case not only for consideration but for immediate action, in order to remove the admitted grievances which exist. The second Com-
mittee which has been announced, and on which Sir Alan Anderson, I suppose, will be the leading Member, will, I understand, have to undertake a very wide field of inquiry. The remit to this Committee will include, I understand, the whole standard of remuneration and other conditions of employment in the various classes employed in the four principal Services of the Crown.
That is a very wide inquiry, which will necessitate a very long investigation, and it is on account of the urgency of the special case which we make that I venture to urge on the right hon. Gentleman that he might give us sonic definite undertaking that this particular question will be dealt with immediately. I say "immediately," because unless this matter be treated at once, there will be undoubtedly severe hardship and injustice felt, and continued to be felt until this matter is settled. I would like to point out that this is not a matter affecting only the unfortunate men and women who are so situated, but it is felt as a hardship and a grievance by other members of the staff who are not themselves directly involved in this particular scale of pay, but who are feeling so severely the situation of their colleagues that they themselves have come forward to supply a special fund to meet I heir need. I hope it will he possible for the right hon. Gentleman to indicate to us that this Second Committee which has been appointed, as I understand, to deal with this, along with other questions, will be in a position to sit down immediately and consider the evidence and the views of those who are concerned in the question of the initial pay, and that we shall have from them an interim report which will deal with this particularly urgent question, so that we shall be in a position to feel that this grievance and hardship shall be first dealt with and settled before the wider scope of the inquiry is embarked upon. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that unreasonable. I am not suggesting he should dictate in any way to the distinguished gentlemen who have undertaken this very onerous duty, but I do suggest it is quite within the power of the Government themselves to draw attention to the urgency of this problem, and to put it before them in such a form that it will be regarded as coming in the forefront of their inquiry.
If they feel a difficulty, with regard to that, there are other alternatives. The Government, I suggest, might see their way to have a small ad hoc Committee or a Select Committee, to deal with this very urgent problem separately, if they think it is going to interfere with the work of the larger Committee. If, on the other hand, they are prepared to put this question in the forefront of the larger Committee's work, and if we receive an assurance that this question will be not only considered but settled within a very early period, then I think we shall be grateful to the Government for giving us such an undertaking, and I am quite sure there will be many onside this House who will recognise that in so doing they are taking a step which will do them credit, and which will satisfy not only hon. Members sitting on these Benches but a very large number of hon. Members who sit behind the Government, and are very much interested in this question.
8.0 P.M.
The case of these particular Civil Servants is, as the House well knows, a particularly distressing and an urgent one. I am not going into all the details on this occasion, because my right hon. Friend, I understand, has agreed that it deserves the earliest consideration, but may I just remind the House of one or two facts which bear upon the actual urgency of the problem? The question which has arisen is due, as the House well knows, to the situation created during the War. It is due to the fact that recruiting was suspended for the Civil Service during the War, and that subsequently a very large number of ex-service men and women were taken on as temporary clerks to do the work in the Civil Service without being established. Then came the period when establishment had to be considered, and many of these men and women of considerable experience, men and women of all ages, a large proportion between 30 and 40 and as old as 50 and 55, all of them having experience of this particular kind of work, were by a process of examination weeded nut, and many received appointments on the permanent establishment. The real urgency of the situation arises in connection with the actual amount of the initial pay on which they entered the permanent service. There is no dispute between my right hon. Friend and those who are interesting themselves in this case
as regards the particular figures, as these are well known, but I would like to remind the House, with regard to the low rate of pay, that a large proportion entered at a basic figure which, along with the bonus added to it, made it almost impossible for these men, many of whom have families, to live. A great many came in at a basic salary of £80 a year, which, plus £64 bonus, works out at £144 per year, or £2 15s. 4d. per week. Grade 2 was £90 plus £72 bonus or £3 2s. per week; and Grade 1 was £100 plus £76, or £176, or £3 8s. per week. There are various grades of clerks who had a salary slightly smaller than the salaries I have mentioned. In all these cases, there has been very real hardship among these men, many of whom were drawing a much larger Sum as temporary clerks.
I want, particularly, to urge upon the hon. Gentleman that in this matter we are satisfied that he and those who know the work these men and women are performing, who know that they are undertaking duties of very great responsibility, are aware that they are no; receiving anything like adequate remuneration for their work, and that they are sitting beside other men who came in before them and who are drawing much higher rates of pay. They are employed in something like 70 different Departments. They are doing important work both in the clerical and executive classes. They are employed in the Ministry of Health, where they are engaged in the auditing of the accounts of local government authorities, and in other branches they are doing work in connection with Income Tax, assessing income Tax and dealing with abatements, anal with the quinquennial valuation which is at present being carried out in regard to property. In many other particulars, they have been rendering very real service to the country at a rate of pay which does not represent anything like what they are entitled to or what they were drawing as temporary clerks. I suggest that these men—who have come in at this low rate of salary equivalent to what boys of 18 and 20 under the ordinary established pay would be drawing—should have to submit to such serious hardships and reductions at the present moment is a matter which calls for immediate consideration. Speaking as a Scottish Member I would point out that there is a large number of these entrants
in Scotland. Some of my Scottish colleagues are interested in this matter, and we desire to have the Scottish cases considered along with those in England and Wales.
I feel in this matter that I am really trying to push an open door. As my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well we are anxious to do everything in our power to encourage the Government to go as far as they possibly can in this matter. We think the case we are making here is on behalf of a most deserving class of civil servants, most of them ex-service men, and they are certainly the poorest paid of all. We base our case on the real hardship which is admitted on all hands and proved by the clearest evidence. Not least—and this point I am sure will appeal most strongly to the right hon. Gentleman—among our civil servants—the finest Civil Service in the world—we have men who are in such a state of destitution as to the means of supporting their families that there is a feeling of dissatisfaction and unrest which reacts on the Service as a whole. The Government will receive the gratitude of all if they can remove this reproach on the Civil Service and make it unnecessary for the other members of that Service to combine together to raise their means of livelihood. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure will do all that he can to assist, to make it perfectly clear, not only to us in the House, but to all who are interested in the matter that this inquiry will immediately deal with the most urgent cases of all, the cases or the Lytton entrants, and that a report will be presented which will enable their case to be satisfactorily dealt with. I hope, when this inquiry takes place, that we may have an assurance that those interested in the question, the members of the staff themselves, will have an opportunity to put their case as members of the staff, and that the humblest member will have an opportunity of putting his case forward and having it sympathetically considered.

Mr. MIDDLETON: I desire to associate myself with the matter raised by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar), and to say that it is one of very great importtance to a very large number of public servants, who look on this House of Commons as the representative of the public who employ them, to remedy the
injustices under which they suffer, as far as it is within our power to do. We cannot, of course, do it ourselves, but we can, at any rate, see that any inquiry which is set afoot is kept within the purview of the House of Commons itself. It is, however, with very great regret that I have noticed the new Committee which has been set up and which is to be charged with the responsibility of making this particular form of inquiry into the starting pay of the Lytton entrants. Only a few days ago we had the Chancellor of the Exchequer informing the House that, in order to look into the case of the application of the Lytton Report, he had decided to set up a Committee of Members of this House, a proposal with which, I think, everybody here will agree, but why it should be considered necessary to delegate another section of that inquiry to a Committee of three members who bear no responsibility to this House I cannot for the life of me tell. They are charged with a task that I am certain they cannot adequately discharge in five or possibly 10 years. They are charged with the task of inquiring into the standard of remuneration and into the conditions of employment of every class of State servant, including the fighting services. I would like to know how it is possible for a Committee of three to undertake a task of that kind and be able to report within a time that can command the confidence of the people whose interests are affected by the inquiry.
The action of the Treasury in regard to those two Committees has aroused a very grave suspicion and unrest among civil servants generally, and I join in the appeal that the hon. Member for East Fife has made that the Government will at this stage reconsider their decision, and give this task of inquiring into the rates of pay of the Lytton entrants to a body which is governed by this House. I think his proposal of a small ad hoc Committee chosen from the Members of this House is the best form of inquiry we could have. It would enable the Committee to be representatives; it would inspire confidence among those whose interests it would have to consider. It would be able to work rapidly; it would be able to report quickly, and the Members would have the satisfaction of knowing that in the criticism which the action of the Government has aroused in all parts of the
country, they have at any rate done something to discharge their obligations as representatives of the public in seeing that the.employés of the public are treated fairly and well. I know something about committees of inquiry. I am entitled to speak for one section of public servants whose interests for many years were governed by Select Committees of this House. Even under the best circumstances, a committee of inquiry is bound to last for months. It is bound to lead to a great deal of discussion and the taking of evidence, the examination of cases that are presented, and under the best circumstances they cannot work quickly. A Committee of Inquiry such as the Anderson Committee must necessarily be, is, I suggest to the Financial Secretary, quite incompetent owing to its constitution, and the difficulty, surrounding it to inquire quickly and adequately into the task given to it.
Why has it been considered necessary to appoint a Committee from outside the House of Commons, and a Committee that is not representative? When you appoint two bankers and a large employer to investigate a question of the wages of men who are getting a week and upwards —most not much above £2—you cannot expect the men who receive such wages to have confidence in a Committee drawn wholly from the employer class. The Benches here, and hon. Members on my left, are entitled to expect a Committee that will be of a more representative character. I for one must enter my protest against the composition of the Committee announced by the Chancellor last Thursday, under circumstances which did the Government no credit. The announcement of that Committee was made under conditions which induced one to believe that the Government knew nothing about it. The Departments that will be very largely concerned evidently knew nothing about it. It. was a Treasury move, and in the view of many of us, a view designed to make more difficult the position of large bodies of public servants who have pressing grievances and desire them to be examined at the earliest possible moment.
We are entitled to ask the Treasury to do something to expediate the inquiry. I listened carefully to the appeals made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. Although his reply was not discouraging, certainly there was nothing very definite about his answers. I hope
the Financial Secretary will, at any rate, enable us to give some comfort to these men who are in dire distress, and whose economic circumstances are such that no Member of this House can justify such to his constituents. I trust we shall be able to tell the men that the House of Commons is not afraid to have their case examined by a body drawn from the House itself. If, however, the Government have made up their minds that that cannot be, if this small Committee must be given the task, then I appeal to them, at any rate, that at the expense of keeping other people waiting, that the first definite duty the Committee should be called upon to undertake is to make this examination. Unless something of the kind is done there will be a suspicion that the Government are prepared to defend the scales of pay that have been given to these men for whom our appeal is made.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he were to examine the scales, would hesitate to justify them. Certainly I know he would not think of justifying them before his constituents. I could not before mine, and I do not believe any Member, in whatever quarter of the House he sits, can feel much satisfaction when he is shown that large numbers of public servants are actually feeling acute economic distress although they are rendering full-time service to the Government of the day. That there is distress there can be no question because it is necessary for the men who are a little better off to have to chili together weekly in order to keep these other men from going on the Poor Law. Surely that shows a primâ facie case, not for inquiry by three employers and bankers, but by the House of Commons itself, and by a Committee on which these benches here are entitled to have representation. I trust the, Financial Secretary will tell us in his reply whether the Government do recognise the seriousness of the ease. If a deaf ear is turned to the appeals we make, I can assure him it cannot possibly he the last of the question, but that, the House of Commons itself will have, appeals from these public servants from time to time until the Government are prepared to deal with the matter.
It is no reflection upon the personal character of those appointed on the Anderson Committee to say we can have no confidence in it, but the Committee is an inappropriate one—that is the term
to use. It is not capable of tackling the question. If the Government have hardened their hearts and our appeal for a Select Committee is unheeded, I hope they will cause this Committee, which ultimately must deal with the matter, to regard this task as the most pressing within their terms of reference. Nothing loss than that will give the least bit of satisfaction to any section of the House, certainly not to a body of civil servants, many of whom I would remind the House fought for their country, and have come back to be told practically that the Government have forgotten the promises made. In this matter we cannot point: to private employers. The responsibility is that of the Government, and we, as representing constituencies, are responsible if anything in the nature of injustice is allowed to remain upon anybody of public servants. We cannot abuse other people for it. We must take the blame to ourselves. I trust that in the House we shall always jealously regard our rights, as welt as regard it as a privilege to look after the interests, of those whom we employ as public servants. I trust, if the Financial Secretary cannot remit this matter to the Select Committee, whose names have not yet been announced, that he will give us a small ad hoc Committee of the House to deal with the matter.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): I hope the House will forgive me for intervening so early, but I do so because in all sincerity I suggest to the House, and to those hon. Members keenly interested in this very vexed and vexatious question, the fact that possibly some measure of harm might be done to the wishes of hon. Members which may or may not be fulfilled, by what would necessarily follow a very prolonged Debate upon this subject. It would be almost impossible to any of us being human beings, to prevent seine measure of detailed criticism, and perhaps a little acerbity of manner by going into such questions as those involved in the discussion. Honestly I am sure the House, will agree with me that that is the last thing we should desire in a question of this character.
I am grateful indeed to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) for the kindly way in which he has made his remarks. I am still more grateful to him that he did not press in any great detail
certain suggestions and criticisms which have been open to any hon. Member of this House to make, but which might have opened up avenues of discussion which would have militated against the fulfilment of our wishes.
The hon. Member asked about the Committee to be appointed which was to inquire how far the recommendations of the Lytton Committee had been carried out, and what its personnel would be. It will be a Committee of Members of this House. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not had the opportunity or the time to select or appoint those Members. I am afraid my hon. Friend (Mr. Middleton) may regard that as unsatisfactory, but I think he will agree, and I believe the House generally will agree, that the appointment of a Committee of this character is not such an easy matter. This Committee has to be drawn from all sections of opinion, and a certain amount of time is required in order to get the consent of hon. Members to serve on the Committee. Reference has been made to the Anderson Committee. I was very sorry the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Middleton) criticised that Committee. I do not say harshly, but shall I say in a critical way. The Committee which has been set up will not only be called upon to consider, but it will be suggested to them that they should consider at their earliest possible moment, the question of the Lytton entrants.
It would be quite impossible to suggest to an independent Committee, or to issue instructions, that they shall the moment they sit and open their proceedings, consider in detail one particular aspect of a question. If such an instruction were issued it would destroy the very meaning of what is known as an independent Committee, and it could not be done. If such a thing were done I am sure it would be criticised in every quarter of the House, and its independence would be destroyed. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) asked if we could give an assurance that representatives of the ex-service men would be called before the Committee. Again, I am sure the hon. Member will quite appreciate that it would be impossible for the Government to say that the Committee should or should not call before them any particular body of individuals. That must he left for the Committee to decide once
it is set up, and they will have to decide who they shall call before them to give evidence, and they will also have to decide what evidence they require to be submitted. I cannot conceive, under circumstances as they exist to-day, when this question of the Lytton entrants is primarily in our minds, that this Committee would not be most anxious to summon before them representatives of the very people whose cases they are considering.

Mr. MILLAR: Would it not be possible to have a small ad hoc Committee to deal with this question?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I do not think it would. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already told the House that he is going to make the suggestion that this Committee should consider this very question at the earliest possible moment, and I think that ought to meet the case. The hon. Member for Carlisle said that the Committee suggested was unrepresentative. I think the hon. Member will recognise the fact that among the many Committees set up to inquire into a variety of subjects a very large proportion of them are composed of independent gentlemen not Members of this House and for very good reasons. That must be obvious to all of us and particularly to those who are keenly interested in these cases. It is obvious that whatever the merits or the demerits of the claim put forward might be, arguments might be used for or against those claims and there would be less possibility of an independent judgment from those who arc vitally affected by the decisions they would be called upon to take in judging the merits of these cases. Therefore although this Committee may be called unrepresentative it is composed of men whose integrity is unimpeachable. One Member of this Committee is General Sir Herbert Lawrence and another is Sir Peter Rylands, and I do not think their names will be called into question.

Mr. J. JONES: Sir Peter Rylands is a member of the Federation of British Industries, and that body is an enemy of the working classes.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I do not agree with the hon. Member. Another member of the Committee is Sir Alan
Anderson, whose services are well known in another capacity and whose integrity cannot be impeached.

Mr. MIDDLETON: I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to say that I did not impeach his integrity, but I challenged him on the ground of the class to which he belongs.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am not using the word integrity from the point of view of personal dishonesty, but rather from the point of view of these gentlemen judging a question on its merits. I think the criticisms made as to the composition of the Committee are really not justifiable. The hon. Member for Carlisle says it is an inappropriate Committee, but I do not agree with him, and I think it is an appropriate Committee. It will have a balanced judgment and will consider all matters free from controversy, prejudice or pressure.

Mr. MIDDLETON: It cannot judge the question from the point of view of the hungry man.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I hope the hon. Member for Carlisle will not bring in little suggestions that might make the Debate acrimonious. There are many other classes to consider besides the Lytton entrants. The matter which the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) has raised is after all the substance of the matter. This Committee is to inquire into the question of the initial pay of the Lytton entrants. That has been definitely stated to be one of the subjects which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will suggest for the early consideration of the Committee, and if that is done surely the position of hon. Members opposite will be met.

Mr. MIDDLETON: No.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Then you do not want consideration.

Mr. J. JONES: Not from you.

Mr. LANSBURY: We want it now.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: This subject will take a certain amount of time for consideration. All we can do is to impress upon the Committee that at the earliest possible moment consideration shall be given to it and we cannot do more than that. I do not wish to go into some
of the questions that have been raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle, but I do wish to emphasize this fact. My two predecessors in this office are both themselves ex-service men, and they would be the last people in the world to have any antipathy or antagonism to the claim of these people. Both of them considered this question. It is not for me to say what my opinion is as regards their judgment; but the whole question is now to he reopened and reconsidered by this Committees, and we should be doing an ill to the cause which is at the heart of many of us if we did anything to prejudice that discussion and consideration at the present moment. I am sure I shall he forgiven for saying one word on behalf of the Department which I have the honour to represent. Some people have said that it is the Treasury that, is hostile, but I can assure the House that the very great hardship involved in this question has been very much present in the minds of the permanent officials of the Treasury. Nothing would have pleased them more than to have been able long ago to have met that hardship, but surely hon. Gentlemen opposite must recognise that even an earnest desire to meet and get rid of a hardship, however obvious it may be to us all, does not complete the question. Other issues of a very difficult character are involved. Most of us, if it were merely a question of putting our hands into our own pockets to help someone, would gladly do it, hut, when you are faced with the fact that, by helping to try to relieve one hardship, you are, perhaps, equally inflicting hardship on another section of the community, then, obviously, it becomes a problem which of itself is a hard one to he called upon to solve, and there is no genuine-hearted man in this House or outside who would not, when faced with that contingency, hesitate somewhat to know what the decision should be.

Mr. LANSBURY: Help the helpless.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My hon. Friend can speak later if he likes, but, perhaps, he will now allow me to continue. This is genuinely one of the problems of to-day, and this Committee which has been set up will take all the considerations into account. I could give, but I do not want to do so, answers to some of the suggestions made by the
hon. Member for Carlisle. I do not want to go into details of controversy upon this matter, because I am sure it would only end in a further acrimonious discussion, and I would in all sincerity deprecate that. I can only say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he will suggest to this Committee that they should consider at the earliest moment this particular question, which is, after all, the pregnant question before us. If the House wilt accept the assurance of my right hon. Friend, and if they will allow me, as a very humble Member of the Government, to say that I individually am just as much interested in seeing a suspension of controversy and a solution of this problem, I am sure the House will be doing no wrong to the cause of those people by accepting the recommendations of the Government and not pressing for any further measure such as a Select Committee. I assure the House that it is not true to suggest that those in high authority at the Treasury are hostile or antipathetic to these claims. It is not correct to assume that, because they are the guardians of the nation's purse, and rightly so, therefore they are not animated by the sincerest desire to meet these cases. After all, however, they are the guardians of the nation's purse, and they have to consider how far, by any action they may take, they may be impairing the smaller comforts of other classes of the community. That, really, has been and must always be the problem with the Treasury.

Mr. MIDDLETON: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered sending this matter to the Select Committee which has already been appointed to deal with the Lytton case?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The Committee to deal with the Lytton case has not been appointed, but a Committee has been promised to inquire into how far the recommendations of the Lytton Committee have been observed. There is this other Committee, the Anderson Committee, which has been set up for the deliberate purpose of inquiring into, among other things, the specific case of the Lytton entrants, and, surely, when the hon. Member suggests, as he did, that
this might go on for a long time, a Committee of three is a surer means of arriving at a speedy decision than a large Committee of 20 or 30. One knows, in private life, that a Committee of three can generally get through their work and come to a decision much sooner than an overstocked Committee of 20 or 30. I appeal to the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar), and to the House, not to press for a Select Committee. I am sure that the Anderson Committee which has been set up will take into consideration speedily and soon all those matters that are in his mind and our own, and I am convinced that, unbiassed by any prejudice, independent in judgment, sincere in their desire to meet and solve a vexatious problem, they will have far greater opportunities of giving something, shall I say, of a consolatory nature to those who are anxious to see the problem solved, while the setting up of a Select Committee of a larger and more numerous character would in itself not result in a speedier decision. I venture to suggest, with great respect to the House, that what has already been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will meet the case, and result in a speedier decision, and, though I cannot foretell, nor can anyone in this House, what the recommendations of that Committee will be, at any rate, they will be called upon to decide upon this vexed question at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. JARRETT: I am extremely sorry to have to get up after the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the Treasury on the Front Bench this evening, but he has not met the particular point that we who have been working on this matter for some considerable time, and are very anxious about, desire to put forward. It is a very simple point. The question whether the Committee that has been appointed to go into the whole question of the pay of the Civil Service is the best kind of Committee, or whether the Select Committee that is about to be appointed should by its terms of reference be enabled to deal with this question of the starting pay of the Lytton entrants, is not really the matter we are pressing upon the representatives of the Treasury. The question that we really want to get at is: Does His Majesty's Government realise the feeling in this House, the
feeling among the civil servants who are concerned, and the feeling in the country generally, as to the urgency of a solution of this problem? It has been admitted on all sides of the House to be probably the finest Civil Service in the world. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Carlisle that we are looking upon this from the point of view of employers, and we do not want it to go forth to the world that the British Government, employing the finest body of men and women in the world, are the worst employers and the worst payers in the world. That is really the problem.
We are not satisfied with the speech we have just heard. We know perfectly well that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking under a disadvantage. He is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The right hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly engaged in preparing the Budget, which is, of course, understandable, and therefore the hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking on behalf of someone else and cannot tell us exactly what he would do if he were the person who had the final decision. But the point we should like him to take to the right bon. Gentleman is this. We have in this House a very strong Committee of Members, consisting of representatives of every party and every section in the House, who are pledged in speech and in writing to see that justice is done to these men at the earliest possible moment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, anticipating a series of attacks upon the Government on this matter, has promised to set up a Select Committee to inquire into the workings and the carrying out of the recommendations which were made by a Committee presided over by the Earl of Lytton during the course of the last Parliament, and one of the matters that that Committee was concerned with was the pay of ex-service members of the Civil Service, and I should like to emphasise what has already been said by the Mover of the Motion and by the hon. Member for Carlisle, that it might be very much better that this question of the starting pay of Lytton entrants should be included in the terms of reference to the Select Committee which is about to he set up. After all, we are rather likely to have two Committees of a totally different nature overlapping in their work. Surely the Committee that is to be set up to inquire
into the carrying out of the Lytton Report must inevitably deal with the pay of these men. As far as I understand the matter, I cannot see how they are going to avoid it. And if we have another Committee inquiring into the wider question of the pay of the whole of the Civil Service they also must inquire into the pay of these men, and we are quite likely to have two overlapping reports, one suggesting one thing and another something totally different.
But these are really matters of detail which are not so urgent as the one thing that we desire to press upon the Government with all the force and all the emphasis at our command, and that is the urgency of the matter. Some of us who have been working in connection with various associations which are organised to look after the interests of various sections of the Civil Service have been astonished and ashamed to know of the benevolent funds which have been necessary to be set up to assist men who are working for the greatest Empire the world has ever known, as we have heard stated more than once to-night, and to keep them from the workhouse or from selling up their homes. It may be that some of these statements are exaggerated. Urgent inquiry can soon put that right. If we can get men who are representative of the body of men for whom we speak that question can be examined in all its aspects. But the one thing that is essential is that if these statements, which we believe are true, then the sooner that is put an end to the better for the credit of the Government and of the country as a whole. I should like to emphasise the main points which we wish to bring forward. Without going into any other aspect of the case we say that the right hon. Gentleman when he gives his Terms of Reference to both these Committees, the one which is to be charged with this question of examining and inquiring into the starting pay of what are known as the Lytton Entrants—for the life of me I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman cannot give an instruction to a Committee he is setting up, but if he cannot give an instruction can he give a very strong suggestion that of all the aspects of the case of the Civil Service that they have got fully to inquire into, this is the one aspect which is vitally urgent and which must be reported
upon at the earliest moment? I urge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to use all the powers of persuasion that he has—and we all know he has many—upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he reports this Debate to him. Many Members who sit behind him are pledged to vote against their own Government on this matter if it is put to the Vote. The feeling is strong that the matter is urgent, and we want something more definite than the vague assurances we have received this evening.

Major BARNETT: I should like from this side of the House to reinforce the argument of the hon. Member who has just spoken, but I cannot go so far as to say I am prepared to vote against the Government, because I hope I have some sense of political perspective. I think there is a very real grievance here, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend—I had not the advantage of hearing his speech—will go as far as he possibly can in the way of showing the Anderson Committee what ought to be done. These ex-service men who were temporarily employed had a chance of going in for the examination, and those who thought they could get through naturally seized the opportunity in order to get security of tenure. I have seen some of the papers, and they were very difficult. When they succeeded in the examination, in many cases their salary was reduced at once. They have been told they have got security of tenure, and when they attain the age of 60 they will be given a pension. That, of course, is a very gratifying thing, but it is no satisfaction to a man who cannot pay his butcher's bill now. If a man is 29 or 30 years of age, has a wife and a couple of children, and has served his country in the War, it is hard that, on succeeding in that examination, he should be asked to accept a salary which was intended for an unmarried boy of 18. I feel convinced that this is a real grievance, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be able, if not to give an explicit instruction, at any rate to show the Committee that it will be consonant with the view of the Government to come to a conclusion such as has been indicated by the hon. Member opposite.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I hesitate to take any part at all in the discussion
after the appeal which has been made from different quarters for a decision favourable to this request, and I should not have said a word at this stage but for the fact that, since the reply which was given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I have had an opportunity of consulting those who are responsible for bringing this case to the Government, and while I cannot commit them in any way. I think it is fair at least that this request should be known. The hon. and gallant. Gentleman's reply came to this, that he could not give a specific instruction to the Anderson Committee on the ground that that would be detracting from its independence. In the second place, while he thought that no doubt the people responsible for presenting the case of the Lytton entrants would be heard in evidence before the Committee, that was a matter which must be left to the judgment of the men appointed. On these two points there was no specific assurance of the kind which we are entitled to expect when a very urgent case is at stake. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House have served on committees of different kinds, and I think we shall agree that there has probably not been a committee set up in recent times which has had a wider reference in many ways or one covering a more extensive field than the Anderson Committee. As a matter of ordinary practice on these committees hon. Members will know that some time is taken with surveying the ground and ascertaining the kind of evidence they are going to call, and the procedure which they intend to follow. That will be the procedure of the Anderson Committee in regard to its first meeting and, for all we know, of subsequent meetings. It is fair to suggest that even if we get far more speed than the hon. Gentlemen has been inclined to suggest, some time will be occupied: it may be a month or two or more. During that time, thousands of men and women will be living under conditions very grievous and difficult, on the salaries and wages which they are now being paid. But for considerations of that kind I should have been inclined to agree with the reply that has been given.
9.0 P.M.
I come now to the specific request which it is fair that we should make to the Government. There is no denying the urgency of this case. I do not think that requires argument. Is it unreasonable
to ask the Government to request the Anderson Committee before they survey the ground of their general reference to undertake consideration of the case of the Lytton entrants, that that shall be done before anything else is considered, and that that inquiry should proceed forthwith? The Financial Secretary's reply did not amount to a request to the Anderson Committee; it would be nothing more than a Government suggestion. I and other hon. Members who have served on numerous committees and have taken part in their work know that very often in the midst of that work we get definite requests from the Government for a reply on specific points, which do not in any way interfere with our independence, and which in many cases contribute to the efficiency of our discharging the task on which we have been engaged. Surely, having regard to the nature of this case, the Government should ask the Anderson Committee to consider this matter first of all, and to present a report. On the second and last point, there seems to be some doubt as to whether the people mainly responsible for presenting this case, namely, the associations, are to be called in evidence before the committee. I agree that it would be very difficult to settle this case by the Anderson Committee or any other committee without hearing the parties to the dispute, but I am bound to keep in mind what very often happens on an important committee of this kind. Unless there is a very definite request that certain evidence should be called, it often happens that the committee is inundated at the outset with requests that evidence should be heard from all kinds of parties, organisations and individual members of the community. The committee is compelled to make a selection of the evidence which they will call, and unless priority is given in this case, and unless we have some definite request and not merely a suggestion, that the case of the Lytton entrants shall be heard, we are going to leave this discussion to-night without the kind of guarantee to which these people are definitely entitled. I think that it is reasonable to ask the Financial Secretary that without any prejudice to future action, he should consent to this course. We are for the moment in this Debate waiving, as I think, the much stronger and better request for an ad hoc com-
mittee. We are not stressing that at, the moment, but we do ask that the people affected in this matter should be called personally to give evidence, because it is a case which is very urgent and which demands the immediate consideration of this House.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I join with the last speaker in urging upon the Government the consideration of the two special points, and the concession of these requests. Much as my party loyalty would ho strained, I will strain it if necessary to go into the division lobby on this question. After 17 years in this House, and with a long official life, I am too much acquainted with the methods of Departmental officials not to know what these vague statements mean. I am not imputing to any Member of the Front Bench any desire to act otherwise than perfectly bonâ fide, but I know that the heads of bureaucratic Departments very often rule the Ministers, and I do not propose to leave myself in the hands of these bureaucrats. Therefore, I invite the Financial Secretary to consider again, before he turns down these two most reasonable requests. The first is that there should be a definite assurance that this, question of the Lytton entrants should be considered promptly. Those of us who represent areas around London know perfectly well that there is a very strong ease in their favour.
You may say that when a man becomes a permanent civil servant you are entitled to say to him: "We cannot give you as a permanency the pay which we are giving to you temporarily." On the other hand, there is a marked difference between the pay of a temporary ex-service civil servant and the pay of £80 which has been offered to him when he passes his examination and is put on the establishment. It is monstrous to suppose for a moment that a man getting towards 30 years of age, with possibly a wife and two children, or maybe more, should be required to live upon what is given to a boy clerk. It cannot be justified. It is not human, and, what is more, say what you like about the work being the same, the man of upwards of 20, unless he is a scallywag and does not intend to work, is by reason of his worldly experience better able to do the work than a boy fresh from school. In him you do have a better and a more attuned man doing the work, than a novice who comes straight from school.
You cannot justify giving that sum to these men. Therefore I do hope that before this matter reaches a crisis this opportunity will be taken to give to the House assurances of a definite character that this question shall be considered at once, and that we shall have evidence that the association of these men shall be at liberty to put their reference before the Anderson Committee. The allegations, made, I believe, with perfect sincerity and without exaggeration in a large number of these cases, do show that it is necessary to pin down definitely those who are behind the Ministers to consider these two points without delay.

Mr. HAYES: I rise because I have been brought into very close contact with many of the members of the Civil Service who are the unfortunate victims of the circumstances of their entry into the permanent Civil Service. During the recent by-election, in which the hon. and gallant Member's predecessor was the candidate in my constituency, the question affecting these ex-service civil servants was brought prominently to the fore, and it is no exaggeration to say that it was the publicity which the civil servants themselves secured, together with such assistance as we could render them as to the treatment to which they had been subjected by the Treasury, that was responsible for a very definite wave of indignation throughout the whole of Liverpool with regard to the treatment of these ex-service men. I am sure that nothing which I shall say will incline the Anderson Committee to deal less justly with these particular claims, but it is because the representative of the Treasury has told the House that it is not within his competence to include within the terms of reference to this Committee some instruction as to how they shall formulate their inquiry, and obtain the necessary evidence, that we are anxious that at least they shall give some indication to the Anderson Committee of the very strong feeling that exists and the opinions which we hold with regard to their very bad treatment and what we consider to be a very bad example to private employers.
This is no party question, and as a young Member of the House f am delighted to find that on such a public and national question there should be an
almost unanimous opinion with regard to the necessity for removing at an early date the injustice that exists. Take the case of not only those in London, but the civil servants to whom we are referring who are in Liverpool. There was an ex-officer in Liverpool who desired to become a worthy servant of the Crown in the Civil Service, who succeeded in passing the examination, and because he was successful in becoming a member of the permanent staff found that, in addition to having to exist on a miserable wage, he was compelled to refund the difference between the money which he had received as a temporary civil servant and the money which he was actually getting, which was less, when he became a permanent civil servant, and out of £2 7s. a week this ex-officer had to pay something like 7s. a week travelling expenses, and to maintain a wife and three children and obtain his own meals in town, in order that he could be one of the respectable Civil Service, which, after all, even if they be poor, are a pride to the country, and I feel it is not becoming the dignity of the House or of our public service that our employés should be reduced to a state in which they become mendicants or have to secure financial assistance from their fellows and other people in order that they may maintain a degree of respectability.
They cannot give that loyal service that we so readily expect from our civil servants unless we as their employers are prepared to give them a decent standard of existence. Only a few days ago one of the Ministers answered a question with regard to the number of persons who had re-registered on the King's Roll. At this particular moment, if it is desired that the employers of this country should employ ex-service men at a decent standard rate of pay, the Government itself at least has no excuse for departing from what we have always endeavoured to believe was an established principle of government, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said that he is particularly anxious to see that justice is done to these men. I am prepared to accept that statement, but I am afraid that the record of the Government during the past two or three months is hardly in keeping with the sentiments that are expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I may refer to a letter which was
sent from the Treasury on the 2nd February last by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessor. In the last paragraph of that letter we find that the former Financial Secretary said:
I am aware that some of the men concerned find it difficult to make ends meet, but I am forced to the conclusion, comparing the conditions of their employment as a whole with those prevailing outside, that an increase of the present rate could not in existing circumstances be justified, and I agree with my predecessor that in this matter we who are administering not our own, but public funds cannot mete out justice as we should like.
If that was the personal expression of the former Financial Secretary, and as Major Hills is an hon. and gallant Gentleman, and we are as much entitled to accept his word as to accept the word of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is now Financial Secretary, I suggest that this House ought by every possible means of expression convey to the Anderson Committee, whatever its progress and policy may be, that we are anxious that something should be done effectively and quickly that will remove an injustice that is generally admitted both inside and out-

side this House. We find that however fine the words uttered on behalf of these men they butter no parsnips. The wives and children of these men are suffering every week. If we could have an assurance from the Treasury Bench that in this connection they will give us an earnest of their sincerity by promising to make retrospective to the 2nd February, or some date from which these people can reasonably consider they have been unjustly treated, any increase that may be recommended by this Committee or any other Committee, if we could have some such assurance, the loyalty of our ex-service civil servants would not be strained as it is strained now, and, however difficult it may be to meet our financial commitments in doing justice to the ex-service men, let this House and the Government at least set an example that will be followed very shortly by employers throughout the country.

Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 145.

Division No. 77.]
AYES.
[9.17 p.m.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Margesson, H. D. R.


Apsley, Lord
Forestier-Walker, L.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Furness, G. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Galbraith. J. F. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Garland, C. S.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C


Barnston, Major Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Bril, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizcs)
Hall. Lieut.Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moreing, Captain Alger[...] H


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Halstead. Major D.
Nall, Major Joseph


Berry. Sir George
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hawke. John Anthony
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Brass, Captain W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pennefather. De Fonblanque


Briggs, Harold
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Penny, Frederick George


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perring, William George


Brown, J. w. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Privett, F. J.


Bruton, Sir James
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hilder, Lieut-Colonel Frank
Raine, W.


Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Butcher, Sir John George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Cassels, J. D.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Cautley. Henry Strother
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Houfton, John Plowright
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt. A
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hume, G. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Clayton, G. C.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jophcott, A. R.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Russell-Wells. Sir Sydney


Cope, Major William
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff. South)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lamb, J. Q.
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lloyd-Greame. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Thomas (Clrencester)
Lorimer, H. D.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Dawson, sir Philip
Lort-Williams, J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Watts, Dr. T, (Man., Withington)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wells, S. R.



Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Winterton. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tubbs, S. W.
Wise, Frederick
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Turton, Edmund Russborough
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.



Wallace, Captain E.




NOES.


Adams, D.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Herriotts, J.
Riley, Ben


Attlee, C. R.
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Irving, Dan
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Batey, Joseph
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Bon wick, A.
Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Bowdler, W. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Royce, William Stapleton


Broad, F. A.
Junes, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Salter, Dr. A.


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scrymgeour, E.


Brotherton, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnoch)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Burgess, S.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Simpson, J. Hope


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Kenyon, Barnet
Sitch, Charles H.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Cairns, John
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S)


Chappie, W. A.
Leach, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Darbishire, C. W.
Linfield, F. C.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Thornton, M.


Ede, James Chuter
Mac Donald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Turner, Ben


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Warne, G. H.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
March, S.
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Entwistle. Major C. F.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Middleton, G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Millar, J. D.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Morel, E. D.
Weir, L. M.


Foot, Isaac
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Westwood, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wheatley, J.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D, L. (Exeter)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Nichol, Robert
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Greenall, T.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Whiteley, W.


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wood. Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Wright, W.


Hall, f (York. W. R., Normanton)
Phillipps, Vivian
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hancock, John George
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Pringle, W. M. R.
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Morgan


Hayday, Arthur
Rae, Sir Henry N.
Jones.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: In view of the Division, I w ant to know what the Government propose to do? I would suggest that, in any event, the present sitting of this House should be adjourned.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "till Thursday."
It is impossible for the House to adjourn without any comment upon the
extraordinary decision which has just been taken. I do not think, within the recollection of the oldest Parliamentarian now alive, any Government has been defeated on the question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." It is a question which, decided adversely to the Government, must be fatal to that Government's existence—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh,!" "Hear, hear!" and Lartighter]. The somewhat juvenile gentlemen on the Front Bench are amused at the situation, but they are apparently unaware of the historical importance of the putting of the question, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." An ordinary defeat in
Supply might be set right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It has been set right before. In 1905, when Earl Balfour's Government were tottering to their ignominous fall, that Government were defeated on Supply. The Government were able to accept the decision and simply allow the Vote to pass, reduced by £100, as it was in Committee. But tonight, what the House has done is to take a decision that, under the auspices of this Government, this House will not go into Committee of Supply at all. Under those circumstances—[Interruption]—

Mr. J. JONES: You will want your special policemen to-morrow.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am giving a true constitutional interpretation of the decision which has just been given. There have been other examples, within my own recollection, in which such defeats have been administered. There were certain defeats which were administered to the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), I thick, in the year 1912; defeats which will be in the recollection of the right hon. Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans). I think he bore a part in one of those incidents. One of them, so far as my recollection goes, was on such an important question as the Financial Resolution for the Government of Ireland Bill. The Government, on that occasion, were enabled to set the matter right by introducing a new Financial Resolution, different in its character. I contend that it is impossible for the ingenuity of any Parliamentarian to frame a Question which, for the purpose of the current Session, can be put to the House which would not involve a reversal of the decision which has been taken to-night.
This is a relic of the old constitutional practice of this country, whereby the redress of grievances came before Supply: and what the House has decided to-night is that, owing to a grievance, in which the majority of its Members hold that the Government have come short, this House shall not go into Committee. I maintain that in these circumstances it is not simply an Adjournment for the night that is necessary. I question whether it will be possible for the Government to resume business to-morrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Yes, I question whether it will. What is the
use of having a discussion on agriculture when we do not know whether or not the Government are going to he in being? They have given part of the day tomorrow for a discussion on agriculture, based on the Report of a Committee of experts, so-called, whom they have appointed. Why should we have this discussion, purely academic, while we have these "transient and embarrassed phantoms" sitting on the Front Bench? That reminds me of another phrase of the distinguished phrase-maker who coined that one. He once, looking at another Treasury Bench, very different in intellect and calibre from that which I see before me, compared them with a spectacle which, he said, was common in the South American landscape—a row of extinct volcanoes.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: They have never erupted.

Mr. PRINGLE: This Government have never been volcanoes. They have been such damp squibs that they have not in any way been able to affect the tranquillity of the country. I think the House as a whole will view this decision, somewhat fortuitous as it is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! ']—we shall now await new combinations. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I observe, with great concern, the undisguised sorrow with which the right hon. Member for Colcester is watching the proceedings to-night. He is showing a spirit of sympathy with his old friends in distress which we must all admire, the Under-Secretaries who were so unchristian as to supersede him, but he bears no malice. He, at least, has never allowed an angry word to escape him, but that cannot be said of all of them. I am sorry the Peers' Gallery is empty and that we have no opportunity of observing the equally Christian spirit of the ex-Lord Chancellor. I am also very happy to believe that on this occasion certain old Friends of ours on the Benches in front of me, have, in spite of some pledges which they gave in a hasty moment at the last General Election owing to exigencies which we can all understand—we have all been in the same difficulties at different times and we are really the same in substance, as the Shorter Catechism would say—I am happy that having given the pledges to which I have referred, that they have been with us on
this occasion and have been enabled to bear their share in bringing to an end a thoroughly inept., futile and incompetent Administration. The verdict of the bye-elections, which made it impossible for any Minister defeated at the lat General Election to get back to this House for any constituency whatever, has been confirmed by the verdict of the House to-night.
We shall be told it is a snap division. Well, everybody knows the importance of the Motion, "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair." At least it used to be known in the old days and, after all, the Division was taken after the dinner hour and the Government have now a full staff of Whips. There was one appointed this afternoon. It is a sad story that the new Scottish Whip will never be able to take up his duties. The greatest misfortune of it all is that the new Scottish Whip is a Coalitionist—a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester—who has strayed from the fold and this decision, so suddenly taken, seems to me to be the righteous Nemesis of any such political infidelity. I think in the circumstances in view of the seriousness of the decision and in view of the difficulties with which the Government are confronted, that the right hon. Gentleman who happens for
the time being to be in charge, should not merely move the ordinary Adjournment Motion, but should adjourn the House until Thursday at the earliest. Obviously the Cabinet must meet and consider the situation. It is not a question of inventing a formula to get over the difficulty. No formula will get over the difficulty which the Government has to face—a vote of no confidence passed by this House and a vote of no confidence in a form in which it cannot be reversed. Those of us who have long political memories will recollect that the Rosebery Government of 1895 was defeated on the Address, but that could be set right because a new Address was moved. But as everybody knows, the same question cannot be put from the Chair twice in the same Session. That is the difficulty the Government are in, and unless they bring this Session to an end and start a new Session they cannot reconstitute themselves. In these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman must see that somewhat longer period of deliberation and delay is necessary and if he does not accede to that view I move my Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter before Ten o'Clock.